Monday, February 06, 2012

Interesting dichotomy: A Tale of Two Republican Parties

I was cruising along my usual Internet Recon (it's a tough gig to get paid to do this sort of thing) when I stumbled upon this fascinating, and completely accurate (IMHO) description of the two Republican parties.

One is the party of Mitt Romney, the other Mainstreamers and their supporters.

The other is the one I belong to.  It's kind of a long read, all of about 4 minutes or so, but plow through it.  It's the best description I've seen yet.  And, as in so many cases, it's via Doug Ross @ Journal.

Take it away, Daniel:
A Tale of Two Republican Parties
There are two Republican parties. One is fairly liberal, it is hostile to the left but it also believes in stealing their thunder by adopting moderate versions of their policies.

This Republican Party is strongly pro-business, but it believes that to succeed in a global economy the government must provide subsidies to businesses and individuals. It believes that immigration reform is needed, though its chosen candidates know to avoid using the word amnesty. It believes that national health care is inevitable and that the only way to avoid a government solution is through the individual mandate.

It is loosely conservative, but disinterested in social issues. It thinks that the left has gone too far in upending traditional values, but has no interested in combating it and finds those who do embarrassing . It adapts to changing mores with an uneasy smile and tries to pretend that it was with it all along. It has no strong religious feelings and it believes that all religious, including Islam, are basically the same.

It is strong on national defense spending, but mainly to maintain stability and national influence, not because it believes that we face any real threats. It believes that America has a responsibility to the rest of the world and that we are obligated to give back through the United Nations and other international organizations allowing us to spread our values of free enterprise and democracy to everyone. 

It is a big believer in the American Dream of economic opportunity, but is unable to think of any other national virtues beyond that. It maintains a strongly Federalist legacy and while it agrees that the Federal government has overreached itself in interfering with the business of states, it has no real interest in rolling back its powers, only in making certain that they are used "wisely".

The only area where it actively rolls back the left's program is its deregulation of businesses, but even this is limited to spheres that are objectionable to specific industries which lobby for deregulation. Small businesses can expect much less help, unless they band together and forcefully make something into an issue.

It has no passion for anything beyond deregulating a few specific industries. It supports the right to bear arms, not because it passionately believes in it, but because the political costs of not doing so are too high. It opposes abortion for the same reason, though its opposition is mainly a formality. It believes that gay marriage is inevitable, but isn't willing to pick a fight with its base over it. 
More:

I am a member of the "other" Republican Party.  As a result, I've ceased being a "settle for" Republican.  And if that makes me a bad human being?

I can live with it.

2 comments:

  1. The Republican Party defined is the one Liberals can make a deal with.

    I assume the "other" Republican Party makes no deals. You either do as they say or leave. You either think as they think or be "cured." I think history is full of "other" Republican Parties.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really, Martin?

    Odd, isn't it, that the "deals" all seem to favor the democrats?

    As I've stated in the past: democrats want to hurtle towards, and off, the cliff.

    These Republicans want to throw us off the same cliff... they just want to get there at a more sedate pace.

    Given that the outcome of jumping off a cliff would be the same no matter how we get to the edge, wouldn't it be better just to refuse to jump?

    We all know the insanity definition. Doing it your way meets it to a "t."

    I for one, think a little less "compromise," particularly on core fiscal policies, is long overdue.

    Strange thing, for example... that deficit: If Congress didn't want one... we wouldn't have one.

    Simple, really.

    ReplyDelete

If I cannot identify you, then your post will be deleted.

No threats (Death or otherwise) allowed towards me or anyone else. If you have allegations of misconduct, they must be verifiable before I will publish them in comments.

Enjoy!