• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why I Could Never Be a Republican

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I am thankful most days of my life that I am not an American. I do, however, live very close by – heck I can see Rochester from my balcony (and that’s TRUE). I can drive to Art Park in Lewiston in an hour and a half.

But, since I’m not American, there is one thing I will never get to do, and that is vote in an American election. But if I could, it finally is abundantly clear to me that I could never – no, not ever – consider myself a Republican. And it is therefore excessively unlikely that I could ever vote for one.

Why, you ask? Let me give a bunch of reasons:

  • I actually care about democracy, and believe in effective opposition to governments in power.
  • I believe that elections matter, and because they matter, should be paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars, so that parties have a more equal opportunity to make their case to the people who will be tasked with electing them.
  • I believe that governments make their best decisions on the basis of facts, science and concern for human beings.
  • I like the truth – really, I’m quite fond of it.
  • I have the capacity to feel shame when I have done something truly egregious.
  • I can admit when I’ve been wrong, when confronted with the facts that show me that I have been.
  • I think people matter more than money, and I think poor people are just as human as rich people.
  • When I was young, I learned that it is wrong to change the rules of the game just so you can win.
  • I prefer hating bad policy to hating people who disagree with me.
  • I won’t pretend to hate people who I secretly want to be like (you straight folks are okay – but I really don’t want to go to bed with you).
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
It’s a shame that in all your years you weren’t left with a more accurate and positive impression of team Red. They really aren't the scum of the earth that team Blue paints them out to be.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
I am thankful most days of my life that I am not an American. I do, however, live very close by – heck I can see Rochester from my balcony (and that’s TRUE). I can drive to Art Park in Lewiston in an hour and a half.

But, since I’m not American, there is one thing I will never get to do, and that is vote in an American election. But if I could, it finally is abundantly clear to me that I could never – no, not ever – consider myself a Republican. And it is therefore excessively unlikely that I could ever vote for one.

Why, you ask? Let me give a bunch of reasons:

  • I actually care about democracy, and believe in effective opposition to governments in power.
  • I believe that elections matter, and because they matter, should be paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars, so that parties have a more equal opportunity to make their case to the people who will be tasked with electing them.
  • I believe that governments make their best decisions on the basis of facts, science and concern for human beings.
  • I like the truth – really, I’m quite fond of it.
  • I have the capacity to feel shame when I have done something truly egregious.
  • I can admit when I’ve been wrong, when confronted with the facts that show me that I have been.
  • I think people matter more than money, and I think poor people are just as human as rich people.
  • When I was young, I learned that it is wrong to change the rules of the game just so you can win.
  • I prefer hating bad policy to hating people who disagree with me.
  • I won’t pretend to hate people who I secretly want to be like (you straight folks are okay – but I really don’t want to go to bed with you).
Yeah America’s a real bad place
Lol
 
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Well as far as economics and social trends go, I think I consider both sides the 'pro-growth' party, and I suspect both sides are, at this point, misunderstanding the utility that the opposite provides to the other. Both parties talk of the need for growth, and a static, stable state is nowhere proposed as being possible. For example, I am reminded that some years ago, someone was actually telling me that environmentalism and birth control are actually right wing values. Well, the left will increasingly think this, since it has now switched to favor urban lifestyle philosophies ; the benefits of city life. Still, they want to focus criticism on big industry, while they benefit from technology and clothes that may be produced unethically. Meanwhile, the right-wing ostensibly favors country living, and in doing this, they convince themselves that nature can't be harmed, since it appears to flourish on the surface level to their mind, or their religion tells them that the physical world doesn't matter that much in the end. So they favor the corporate extensions of globalized labor (probably more often than not) and factory farming, which act as columns to uphold the leftist urban vision.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It’s a shame that in all your years you weren’t left with a more accurate and positive impression of team Red. They really aren't the scum of the earth that team Blue paints them out to be.

Like all of these accurate items?

A leader who lies/gaslights, cheats, steals,
Promotes borrow and spend economics
Supports insurrectionists
Cancels people who disagree (Liz Cheney being the latest)
Cancels rights of teacher to teach
Cancels rights of doctors to practice medicine
Cancels rights of voters to vote
Support dictators like Putin
Tries to cancel the rights of prosecutors to gather evidence
Cancels rights of transgender people
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I am thankful most days of my life that I am not an American. I do, however, live very close by – heck I can see Rochester from my balcony (and that’s TRUE). I can drive to Art Park in Lewiston in an hour and a half.

But, since I’m not American, there is one thing I will never get to do, and that is vote in an American election. But if I could, it finally is abundantly clear to me that I could never – no, not ever – consider myself a Republican. And it is therefore excessively unlikely that I could ever vote for one.

Why, you ask? Let me give a bunch of reasons:

  • I actually care about democracy, and believe in effective opposition to governments in power.
  • I believe that elections matter, and because they matter, should be paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars, so that parties have a more equal opportunity to make their case to the people who will be tasked with electing them.
  • I believe that governments make their best decisions on the basis of facts, science and concern for human beings.
  • I like the truth – really, I’m quite fond of it.
  • I have the capacity to feel shame when I have done something truly egregious.
  • I can admit when I’ve been wrong, when confronted with the facts that show me that I have been.
  • I think people matter more than money, and I think poor people are just as human as rich people.
  • When I was young, I learned that it is wrong to change the rules of the game just so you can win.
  • I prefer hating bad policy to hating people who disagree with me.
  • I won’t pretend to hate people who I secretly want to be like (you straight folks are okay – but I really don’t want to go to bed with you).
When I was one of them, I really didn't know any better. I was young, dumb, and way too much into Church, and then just young and dumb and not really knowing any better.
But then I realized their rose-tinted red,white, and blue shades aren't a one size fits all, struggling with healthcare expenses is a reality, and it's brutal when you're poor and trying to better yourself.
I also began to accept equal rights and liberties means equal rights and liberties for all, not for certain groups. I began to learn no where else in the West does it like America, which is failing and struggling and an embarrassment compared to the rest of the West, and it's Republicans who are far more apt and inclined to keep it that way.
And as I began to accept myself and others I realized the core of Republican values has no place, business, or right existing in today's society the way they insist on special privileges and rights to discriminate all because the invisible spook in the sky is very angry and always pissed off tells them to be hate filled ******** and inflict grief upon others who aren't like them.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Like all of these accurate items?

A leader who lies/gaslights, cheats, steals,
Promotes borrow and spend economics
Supports insurrectionists
Cancels people who disagree (Liz Cheney being the latest)
Cancels rights of teacher to teach
Cancels rights of doctors to practice medicine
Cancels rights of voters to vote
Support dictators like Putin
Tries to cancel the rights of prosecutors to gather evidence
Cancels rights of transgender people
When you put it like that Trump is the God Emperor of Cancel Culture with his Cult of Cancel who runs about with the mentality of "thy cancels be done."
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
When you put it like that Trump is the God Emperor of Cancel Culture with his Cult of Cancel who runs about with the mentality of "thy cancels be done."

Trying to cancel our ability to cancel will cause an event horizon leading to a cancel black hole of oblivion.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Well as far as economics and social trends go, I think I consider both sides the 'pro-growth' party, and I suspect both sides are, at this point, misunderstanding the utility that the opposite provides to the other. Both parties talk of the need for growth, and a static, stable state is nowhere proposed as being possible. For example, I am reminded that some years ago, someone was actually telling me that environmentalism and birth control are actually right wing values.
It depends of whom the target is, as always. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, both the right-wing and centrist mainstream of America and parts of EUrope were enormous fans of birth control within the context of eugenics and racial hierarchies, where "unworthy" individuals and races would be prevented by the state from reproducing "too much" whereas "worthy" individuals and races would be encouraged and supported.

Likewise, environmentalism was popular among pre-WW2 conservatives because of its conservationist and preservationist aspects, essentially "preserving" untouched or barely-touched wilderness for the benefits of the politically dominant populations - which is still leaving its mark in third world countries that often face a dilemma between preservationist efforts for the sake of their former colonial masters on one hand, and rapacious exploitation and environmental destruction for the sake of a capitalist free market controlled by these same people.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
It depends of whom the target is, as always. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, both the right-wing and centrist mainstream of America and parts of EUrope were enormous fans of birth control within the context of eugenics and racial hierarchies, where "unworthy" individuals and races would be prevented by the state from reproducing "too much" whereas "worthy" individuals and races would be encouraged and supported.

All I can intuit, is that when the 50's crash landed into the 60's, birth control was surely considered left wing, along with the rest of the cultural change that occurred. Whatever the trend is that your referring to (in normative society, not extremist ones), it cannot have lasted long in the true conservative context, where family and religion are bulwark values against birth control. In your view, in what context does the left use the practice? Is it just for fun, or is there something more to it? And if it is partly about downsizing family size, why?

Eugenics is an unfavorable term, and I am against racial hierarchies, but actual biohacking and gene editing might come down the pike - and what if this possibility were to be made available to all? What if you could get rid of your prostate cancer in your family.. I remember in 10th grade health class that came up, and some kid thought he was doomed to get it, cause his father got it, and his grandpa got it.. So let's say that the scientists can go and split some hairs on the next embryo in the family.. Did some kind of massive, slippery ethical decision just occur there? Or is it just helping future people live better lives? Who is going to be for this, the Left or the Right? Both or neither?

I might as well mention that I don't think I want to reproduce myself, as I don't like the idea of passing on my heritable mental condition (this is a personal decision , not one I am prescribing to others to follow). And I wouldn't describe this as 'self-hate' or anything, because I have arrived at a substantial level of peace and acceptance with myself, personally.

Likewise, environmentalism was popular among pre-WW2 conservatives because of its conservationist and preservationist aspects, essentially "preserving" untouched or barely-touched wilderness for the benefits of the politically dominant populations - which is still leaving its mark in third world countries that often face a dilemma between preservationist efforts for the sake of their former colonial masters on one hand, and rapacious exploitation and environmental destruction for the sake of a capitalist free market controlled by these same people.

Well you know I did just read Thoreau, and though I found him arrogant and sort of misanthropic, I'm not really sure that transcendentalism allowed for the kinds of boxes your presenting, and that's the whole reason that throeau is still in the western conversation, is because nature gives us a transcendentalist intimation. In fact, in reading thoreau, it makes it quite clear that common society wasn't yet able to even abstract/generalize much of a reason or purpose for nature, other than it being some vast mercurial larder. But what are you referring to? The narrative your describing is totally new to me. I don't think that that's really how they see it.. In our culture's eyes, making money is a bit more central than extracurricular activities that you encounter by happenstance.. Hell, I work with a numerous republicans who like to deer hunting and fishing, but at end of the day, material production at the factory is what society agrees need to continue, at cost. But both parties are the pro-growth party

And also, what about fdr and tr.. didn't one of them want to plant a million trees, and weren't they considered to be kind of far to the left?
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I am thankful most days of my life that I am not an American. I do, however, live very close by – heck I can see Rochester from my balcony (and that’s TRUE). I can drive to Art Park in Lewiston in an hour and a half.

But, since I’m not American, there is one thing I will never get to do, and that is vote in an American election. But if I could, it finally is abundantly clear to me that I could never – no, not ever – consider myself a Republican. And it is therefore excessively unlikely that I could ever vote for one.

Why, you ask? Let me give a bunch of reasons:

  • I actually care about democracy, and believe in effective opposition to governments in power.
  • I believe that elections matter, and because they matter, should be paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars, so that parties have a more equal opportunity to make their case to the people who will be tasked with electing them.
  • I believe that governments make their best decisions on the basis of facts, science and concern for human beings.
  • I like the truth – really, I’m quite fond of it.
  • I have the capacity to feel shame when I have done something truly egregious.
  • I can admit when I’ve been wrong, when confronted with the facts that show me that I have been.
  • I think people matter more than money, and I think poor people are just as human as rich people.
  • When I was young, I learned that it is wrong to change the rules of the game just so you can win.
  • I prefer hating bad policy to hating people who disagree with me.
  • I won’t pretend to hate people who I secretly want to be like (you straight folks are okay – but I really don’t want to go to bed with you).

It's a reason why I'm not longer a Republican and sought out a party that embraces a balance of conservatism and liberalism.



It’s a shame that in all your years you weren’t left with a more accurate and positive impression of team Red. They really aren't the scum of the earth that team Blue paints them out to be.

That true. But the party needs to reign in some things that are detrimental to the country's welfare.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
They really aren't the scum of the earth that team Blue paints them out to be.
But the party is only a dark shadow of the party I used to identify with. Thus, it's not the "Blue" that's painted them this way-- it's the "Red" that's painted themselves into a very dark corner as being the Party of Trump, thus not conservative nor honest in the least.

The "Party of Law & Order" and of "Family Values" is dead.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
All I can intuit, is that when the 50's crash landed into the 60's, birth control was surely considered left wing, along with the rest of the cultural change that occurred. Whatever the trend is that your referring to (in normative society, not extremist ones), it cannot have lasted long in the true conservative context, where family and religion are bulwark values against birth control. In your view, in what context does the left use the practice? Is it just for fun, or is there something more to it? And if it is partly about downsizing family size, why?
We are talking about two very different methods of birth control - state-directed and individual birth control. The former places the individual's reproduction under control of the state or the family, while the latter places control in the hands of the individual.

The 1960s brought the birth control pill and with it, for the first time in history, a mass-producible and mass-marketable method of individual birth control that had a high chance of actually working. This completely upended the state's relationship to human birthrate and birth control - what formerly required expensive procedures was now relatively easily available, and thus largely outside state control (and indeed, patriarchial control in general - women were free to regulate their own bodies for the first time in modern history).

So while state-directed birth control had the slant of eugenics, or at the very least of the state directly intervening to control its citizens' birth rates, individualized birth control could operate apart from such considerations, and was really only limited to the individual's choice in this, so could not be instrumentalized by political ideologies to the same extent - a woman could use the Pill regardless of convictions or moral justifications, after all, and was not required to subscribe to any particular political ideology - or really, any ideology at all - to follow through with it.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
We are talking about two very different methods of birth control - state-directed and individual birth control. The former places the individual's reproduction under control of the state or the family, while the latter places control in the hands of the individual.

I guess the problem is, that the counter-cultural forces of the sixties were perceived as generating an ethos. The left is percieved as being collectivist (though the right probably is as well I suppose). I suppose this comes back to some of my ideas about the rarity 'individual,' which I won't retread here. But it is relevant, as it is hard or impossible to say what could appeal to an individual
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I guess the problem is, that the counter-cultural forces of the sixties were perceived as generating an ethos. The left is percieved as being collectivist (though the right probably is as well I suppose). I suppose this comes back to some of my ideas about the rarity 'individual,' which I won't retread here. But it is relevant, as it is hard or impossible to say what could appeal to an individual
In my experience of talking to conservatives and other right-wingers on the Internet and elsewhere, many Republicans' imagining of "the left" seems to be largely a projection of their fears and hatred, with very little resemblance to the factual makeup of centrist, liberal, or leftist ideological frameworks.
 
Top