The Republican Party's Identity Crisis

[IMA-G-RIDER]

In the aftermath of the substantial Democratic victory in last Novembers election, Republicans nationwide are reported to be doing a great deal of soul searching Indeed they should. After all, times are not looking good for the Republican Party. Former President Bush left office with record-low support, and both houses of Congress, along with the White House, are now solidly Democratic. Michael Steele, a former lieutenant governor and recently elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, attributed the Republican loss in the last election to a lack of understanding of what the party stood for. In his words, We didnt have anything to say to the American people other than, re not Democrats.
Saxby Chambliss, the newly re-elected Republican senator from Georgia, has echoed Steele, calling on the party to return to its principles.

But what principles are those? Historically, the political philosophy of the Republican Party has been an amalgam of advocacy for small government and capitalism, combined with support for religion and traditional values. The more capitalist element of the party tends to concern itself primarily with economic policy, traditionally supporting less government spending, lower taxes and deregulation. By contrast, the religionist element of the party tends to focus on social policy. It is the driving force behind Republican support for increasing the role of religion in public life, the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and various attempts to ban gay marriage.

But the line between economic and social policies has become increasingly blurred. Though the capitalist and religionist elements have each tried to grant the other autonomy within its own area of interest, the differences in their fundamental principles have resulted in conflicting policy approaches. Most religionists, for example, don’t seem to have a problem with the growth of the welfare state, as long as faith-based initiatives get a piece of the pie (as they did in the case of the Bush Administration’s “social service grants� for religious organizations, which handed out $2.2 billion in one year alone). The capitalist Republicans, on the other hand, tend to advocate for reducing government programs and handouts. A reduction in welfare recipients, for example, was a key ingredient of the Republican Party platform in the mid-90s.

The conflict between the two camps is not limited to entitlements. While the religionists support greater policing of the airwaves for objectionable content, the capitalists are inclined towards less government control over media outlets. The religionists want to maintain and improve public schools but ensure religion has an influence on the curriculum (such as how evolution is taught), while the capitalists have tended to support things like school vouchers, which some see as a step towards privatizing education.

This clash in policy positions is the result of two distinct sets of political principles. In the past, both sides coexisted in an uneasy alliance, but over time the disagreements between them have become too great to reconcile. This is unsurprising: the two sets of political principles are grounded in two opposing ethical systems.

Capitalism upholds each individual’s right to exist for his own sake, independent from any group. Its moral foundation is rational self-interest. According to this morality, the good is the pursuit of one’s own happiness. Religion, on the other hand, implies a system where each individual exists to serve the group or greater good. Christian tradition is rife with admonishments against selfishness: “we are our brother’s keepers� is an obvious example. This sentiment represents the moral code of altruism, which holds fulfilling the needs of others as a moral imperative. The welfare state is a natural extension of this tenet. People need money, education, sanitation, transportation, etc. Under a religious (i.e. altruistic) morality, we are obligated to satisfy these needs for those unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

How can one reconcile these opposing beliefs? How can one unite the religious demand to selflessly help the needy through welfare state agencies (such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) with the capitalist insistence that an individual’s primary responsibility is achieving his own well-being? Where is the compromise between the religionist’s call to force children to pray in school and the capitalist’s call to maintain a barrier between church and state? How can one bring together the principle that a woman’s life is her own (the morality of rational self-interest), with the edict that a woman has a duty to protect the growth of an embryo (the morality of religion)?

The answer is that one can’t. There is no way to reconcile an individualistic, self-interested morality and an altruistic morality of religious duties. Politically, this means there is no way to support both capitalist and religious policies. “The party of principle,� as the GOP often calls itself, is currently governed by two sets of principles that fundamentally contradict one another.

The first years of President Obama’s administration provide the Republican Party with an opportunity to redefine itself. To do so, Republicans first need to decide what they stand for. They can become the party that promotes individual rights, small government, and capitalism, or they can become an ever more theocratic, intrusive, and socialist party.

Thus far, the signs are not good for those Republicans who support capitalism. The Bush administration solidified the prominence of religionists within the party. As evidence of the party’s current direction, Sarah Palin, McCain’s devoutly religious running mate, is already being considered as a candidate for 2012. But the opportunity for a new direction remains.

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

wow you guys got problems .. lol

[PoliPino]

Republicans who support Capitalism are called Libertarians now

[booger]

The republican problems showed up in the elections in NJ , Va. and NY yesterday didnt they ?



GREAT THREAD !!!!!!!

[Jeff92se]

And Houston. Right wicky and boogie? the fact that even comes to a run off is halarious

[booger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597807...more_politics/

Republican wins deal blow to Obama
Republicans win Virginia, New Jersey governorships from Democrats


updated 10:19 a.m. CT, Wed., Nov . 4, 2009
WASHINGTON - Republicans inflicted a double blow on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party, winning gubernatorial races in two states that had backed him last year.

The Republican victories Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey are a setback for Obama as he struggles to overhaul the U.S. health care system, win passage of climate change legislation, and build political support for his handling of the war in Afghanistan.

They could also be ominous for Democrats ahead of next year's midterm elections, when a third of the Senate, all of the House of Representatives and most governorships are on the ballot.

[booger]

Originally Posted by Jeff92se

And Houston. Right wicky and boogie? the fact that even comes to a run off is halarious

Hmmm...why do you think it didnt make national head lines ???? In fact , very little attention has been paid to it ! hmmmm ! halarious indeed !

[jaspergtr]

There appears to be much more division within the democrats than the republicans... It's just that the mainstream media only talk about the republican's issues.

It's funny when you see both sides.

Perhaps the OP knew this, but didn't look for another 'balanced' opinion article. Interesting "copy & paste" without any opinion from the OP.

[Jeff92se]

LOL at the subtle cut and paste crack combined with the 'balanced' opinion article mention. As someone else has had their elmer's and scissors out like Santa on Christmas Eve

[jaspergtr]

Subtle? No. I thought I was quite clear.

And who else is just copying and pasting?

I saw booger counter the OP's point, with an article of his own...

I'll even point it out for you, so there is no confusion (even though you missed it the first time).

post #3

then...

post #5.

LOL at the subtle attempt to take yet another thread off-topic...

[Jeff92se]

lol at jasper's lack of sight regarding someone else's entire thread consisting almost entirely of cut and paste opinion articles.

[jaspergtr]

Originally Posted by Jeff92se

lol at jasper's lack of sight regarding someone else's entire thread consisting almost entirely of cut and paste opinion articles.

lol at Jeff's inability to discuss one topic at a time...

Can we please keep this on topic?

Is that too much to ask?

[Jeff92se]

lol at Jasper's inability to see the hyprocrisy of big picture here in this section. But I'm sure when he sees it, he will no longer be hypocritical about it and call out the same. (or not)

[IMA-G-RIDER]

:rolls eyes:

[Texasscout]

The "Republican" party or GOP, DOES have an Identity crisis. The wandered of the reservation some time last elections and are VERY slowly finding there way back. Every time they move to the center or even left of center, they lose their voting base. McCain is a prime example of that. He was no Republican and certainly no Conservative. Sure he was right of BO, but not that much.

The Dems took a smacking yesterday and they are still smarting from the paddling. If they are smart, they will regroup, pull the plug on this medical bill and start reining in the spending. If they don't, the elections in 2010 will be a blood bath for them.

[Jeff92se]

Originally Posted by Texasscout

The "Republican" party or GOP, DOES have an Identity crisis. The wandered of the reservation some time last elections and are VERY slowly finding there way back. Every time they move to the center or even left of center, they lose their voting base. McCain is a prime example of that. He was no Republican and certainly no Conservative. Sure he was right of BO, but not that much.

The Dems took a smacking yesterday and they are still smarting from the paddling. If they are smart, they will regroup, pull the plug on this medical bill and start reining in the spending. If they don't, the elections in 2010 will be a blood bath for them.

I've said the same (in not so many words) about the democrats / healthcare issue. So I just about agree 100% on this post. Unless both parties can agree on the important parts that need reform and get it passed. But the public would need to be convinced that any bill would net them the same or better care and the same or lower cost. (or at least at a smaller rates of increase we are seeing in today's insurance rates)