I registered me and my wife to vote yesterday. We should be getting our ballots by mail, thereby obviating any excuses about schedule come election day. Plus, it'll give me the opportunity to do some research on the things that I'm expected to decide upon that I haven't given any attention to yet.
Because it is a divisive political season (isn't it always? And don't we always use the acrimonious behavior of a few as indicative of the unworthiness of those running?), I wanted to note something I'm seeing. This is meant to be condemnatory of poor behavior, but I hope that no one who reads this would consider my thoughts as being disparaging of them personally. Despite attempts of many to the otherwise, one's political party or philosophy can be disagreed with sans acrimony. For the most part, that's what I'm trying to say here.
I live in a highly conservative part of the United States, and many of the students (and coworkers) with whom I work are likewise conservative. I believe a great deal of them have always assumed they were Republicans (though how many actually paid party dues and could be considered, therefore, actual Republicans is a different matter). And, at this point--a little more than a month away from the 2016 election--I really feel for them. I stopped associating with Republicans at the ballot box back in 2004, and as I explained earlier, I feel that the Republican brand is toxic. Indeed, that's part of my point: When people ask how the country got to the point of having to deal with a toupee-wearing traffic cone, I have to bite my tongue. Donald Trump is what Republicanism (with a capital R, because I'm talking about the party) has been gearing toward for at least the past decade and a half. He is the logical conclusion of every tactic the GOP put into effect during both the Bush and Obama administrations.
One commentator on NPR argued that the Republican party wasn't what Trump was selling. I had to snort. The birther movement alone is evidence that there's a deeply seated racism in the party calling itself conservative. Until a Black man was in the Oval Office, no one demanded this. Now, the leader of the GOP is the one who most stridently voiced his distrust of President Obama's citizenship. This, to me, comes as no surprise. The correlating lines are quite clear.
The commentator added that Trump was every negative stereotype liberals had painted the Republican party. Yes, that is true. (Due to Trump's position as the party leader, it also validates many of those stereotypes--though, ironically, not ones like fiscal conservativism or compassionate capitalists.) So the commentator had to walk back his phrase and say that Trump was not conservative.
This is also very true.
The logical conclusion about the Republican party, then, is that it's no longer a conservative movement (which, I would argue, it hasn't been for quite some time). As an outsider, I would say it's an ossified vestige of mid-twentieth century thinking that doesn't operate in early-twenty-first century realities. Like many, I think the Grand Ole Party needs to go away. While I disagree with a lot of the platforms of conservativism, I think there's a lot of value in having a different point of view. A new strain of genuine conservativism would be nice--and, while we're at it, a progressive, rather than liberal platform, too. It's obvious to me (and others like me) that there is a deep problem in the GOP.* It needs, not reformation, but a restoration. Its concerns are too contradictory to remain, and I think a right-leaning inclination ought to be bifurcated wherever possible. In short, I would be interested in seeing a coalition government, rather than a party system.
And, since we're wishing for the impossible, I'd like a magical unicorn that will teleport me places.
---
* "But the Democrats need to...." is the quick response to this blog. This holds no water for me. I'm here to discuss the GOP, not the DNC. I'm not falling for that fallacy.
Because it is a divisive political season (isn't it always? And don't we always use the acrimonious behavior of a few as indicative of the unworthiness of those running?), I wanted to note something I'm seeing. This is meant to be condemnatory of poor behavior, but I hope that no one who reads this would consider my thoughts as being disparaging of them personally. Despite attempts of many to the otherwise, one's political party or philosophy can be disagreed with sans acrimony. For the most part, that's what I'm trying to say here.
I live in a highly conservative part of the United States, and many of the students (and coworkers) with whom I work are likewise conservative. I believe a great deal of them have always assumed they were Republicans (though how many actually paid party dues and could be considered, therefore, actual Republicans is a different matter). And, at this point--a little more than a month away from the 2016 election--I really feel for them. I stopped associating with Republicans at the ballot box back in 2004, and as I explained earlier, I feel that the Republican brand is toxic. Indeed, that's part of my point: When people ask how the country got to the point of having to deal with a toupee-wearing traffic cone, I have to bite my tongue. Donald Trump is what Republicanism (with a capital R, because I'm talking about the party) has been gearing toward for at least the past decade and a half. He is the logical conclusion of every tactic the GOP put into effect during both the Bush and Obama administrations.
One commentator on NPR argued that the Republican party wasn't what Trump was selling. I had to snort. The birther movement alone is evidence that there's a deeply seated racism in the party calling itself conservative. Until a Black man was in the Oval Office, no one demanded this. Now, the leader of the GOP is the one who most stridently voiced his distrust of President Obama's citizenship. This, to me, comes as no surprise. The correlating lines are quite clear.
The commentator added that Trump was every negative stereotype liberals had painted the Republican party. Yes, that is true. (Due to Trump's position as the party leader, it also validates many of those stereotypes--though, ironically, not ones like fiscal conservativism or compassionate capitalists.) So the commentator had to walk back his phrase and say that Trump was not conservative.
This is also very true.
The logical conclusion about the Republican party, then, is that it's no longer a conservative movement (which, I would argue, it hasn't been for quite some time). As an outsider, I would say it's an ossified vestige of mid-twentieth century thinking that doesn't operate in early-twenty-first century realities. Like many, I think the Grand Ole Party needs to go away. While I disagree with a lot of the platforms of conservativism, I think there's a lot of value in having a different point of view. A new strain of genuine conservativism would be nice--and, while we're at it, a progressive, rather than liberal platform, too. It's obvious to me (and others like me) that there is a deep problem in the GOP.* It needs, not reformation, but a restoration. Its concerns are too contradictory to remain, and I think a right-leaning inclination ought to be bifurcated wherever possible. In short, I would be interested in seeing a coalition government, rather than a party system.
And, since we're wishing for the impossible, I'd like a magical unicorn that will teleport me places.
---
* "But the Democrats need to...." is the quick response to this blog. This holds no water for me. I'm here to discuss the GOP, not the DNC. I'm not falling for that fallacy.
Comments