Why I rarely vote for Republican candidates at the national level

[NJlonghorn]

I've discussed this issue in the West Mall before, but I just read a good article on the topic.

On fiscal issues, I am a right-leaning centrist. On social issues, I am a left-leaning centrist. By and large, the fiscal issues are more important to me than the social issues, so I'd prefer to vote Republican.

So why do I usually vote with the donkeys? Because the anti-this and anti-that rhetoric from the right scares the crap out of me. The point is well illustrated by this article. The key thesis:

Think for a moment about how a member of any minority group — African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, Muslim, Jew, Pacific Islander — would view everything that has gone on in this primary campaign, and how inclined it might make them feel to vote for whichever candidate the Republicans nominate.

We often assume that the effect of something like Trump's comments on Muslims or the GOP debate on who hates "amnesty" the most will only affect the opinions of the particular group being targeted at that moment. But everyone else hears those things too. For people who have the experience of being a minority in America, it doesn't go unnoticed when one party communicates that it's actively hostile to people who aren't white and Christian. Even if you're, say, Asian-American and you haven't heard a GOP candidate attack people like you specifically, you'll probably suspect that that's only because they haven't gotten around to it yet.​

Do I fear that the government is going to be rounding up Jews in the near future? No. Do I even worry that discrimination in the US hurts my business? Not really. But that doesn't change the fact that I am very sensitive to these issues, and the insensitivity coming from the right turns me off enough to make it almost impossible for me to vote for them.

And don't even get me started on people (almost exclusively Republicans, including several running for President) who call the US a Christian nation. Just typing that makes me shudder.

This election will be hard for me. There are two Democrats to choose between, one way too far left and the other way too sleazy. Ugh.

 

[theiioftx]

Just exactly what fiscal issues are you speaking about? It is okay that you are a liberal democrat. Really, it is. Just vote your conscience and move on already.

If you really want to vote Republican, you might consider reading something other than progressive website propaganda.

 

[Mr. Deez]

To be fair, Waldman is a partisan turd, who's going to crap on the GOP no matter what it does. They could be totally inclusive in their rhetoric and more sensible in their approach, and he'd call them racists and rip them just as much. They can satisfy him as much as Democrats could satisfy Rush Limbaugh.

Nevertheless, your point is still valid, and frankly it's sad, because the GOP's actual policy agenda (meaning what they actually try to do when given the chance) isn't inherently anti-any of the groups you mention. However, to a great extent, it's packaged as such in the primary elections, because that motivates the base. It's not enough to want the border secured, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Candidates have to name call and demonize. I really don't understand why that gets some voters excited, but it does.

But if you have reservations about the candidates' approach, you're deemed a liberal Democrat. (See Eye's remarks.) That's the nature of politics today - absolute polarization. You're either completely and unquestioningly in our corner in every respect (substantively and rhetorically), or you're a Christ-hating Marxist and a waste of flesh.

I know many people who's concerns are similar to yours. The political culture calls them moderates, but I don't think that's accurate. What they really are is solutions-oriented realists. Whatever we call them, most that I've known understand that they'd be a minority in the GOP and don't expect to get their way in the areas of disagreement. They mainly just want their views shown a reasonable degree of respect. That goes a lot further than people think. If the person's mind is open (as yours is, otherwise you wouldn't even be considering the GOP), that's also how you get people to accept your view.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Do I fear that the government is going to be rounding up Jews in the near future? No. Do I even worry that discrimination in the US hurts my business? Not really. But that doesn't change the fact that I am very sensitive to these issues, and the insensitivity coming from the right turns me off enough to make it almost impossible for me to vote for them.

I'm Hispanic/Asian Pacific Islander and everyone here knows how I vote. My demographic is desperately underrepresented in Academy Award nominations and I don't care. Correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed you were caucasian. Your sensitivity sounds like white guilt. Just vote for the candidate that makes the most sense. Maybe it's a republican, maybe it's a democrat. Just make the decision based on facts and logic and not propaganda (e.g. Biden's "Come on...seriously...do you trust us? Or do you trust them?").

I never once felt unwelcome, or treated like an alien, or verbally assaulted by racial epithets growing up in a red district in Texas. I have a half dozen times been verbally assaulted with racial slurs in New York and Washington DC (the last time a month ago).

And don't even get me started on people (almost exclusively Republicans, including several running for President) who call the US a Christian nation. Just typing that makes me shudder.

The Pilgrims came over here not for religions freedom. On the contrary, they came here because the Roman and Anglican Church were too soft and wanted to establish a theocracy.

 

[Musburger1]

I've got problems with both parties and all of the leading candidates. On the Democrat side, Hillary is the politician that represents the status quo. She doesn't do much to excite the working class as her loyalties are to Wall Street, and her (and Bill's) career moves have always backed the corporate interests (NAFTA, deregulation of the banking interests, etc.) over the blue collar labor oriented Democrat base. Not to mention its pretty obvious Hillary has little or no respect for the law. The alternative is Socialist minded Sanders whose agendas (free college, higher taxes, breakup of the big banks) would never get through Congress, and quite frankly would only put greater strain on an already massive national debt. So what you have is basically a choice between a corrupt, special interest serving, sociopath in Hillary, and a Socialist that denies fiscal realities in Sanders.

Now look at the Republican side. The status quo there is a neocon agenda of ever expanding defense spending, foreign intervention, nation building, and secretive trade agendas. Of course, these are the same things Clinton supports, except she disguises it with progressive rhetoric. Like Clinton, your leading candidates are bought and paid for. Multi-billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer is backing Rubio, and the Koch brothers are able to channel millions to preferred candidates via a multitude of organizations. No matter who wins, unchecked immigration continues, military overreach continues with all that comes with it (unaccounted for billions lost to fraud, incompetence, poorly written contracts, refugee flows, etc.). The alternative is Donald Trump, an egotistical wildcard that gains popularity playing to populism.

And behind the President, you have a Justice Department that no longer serves the people by serving as a check on Executive malfeasance, but rather protects criminality within the Executive Branch from the people they are supposed to answer to. Most, if not all of the bureaucracies are a law unto themselves than no longer answer to Congress (the elected representatives of the people). These agencies for the most part have been "captured" by the industries they supposedly regulate. The financial industries basically control the SEC, the Pentagon is just a cog in the military-industrial complex, and so on.

We are at the point where a Presidential candidate has either zero or very little chance to win a nomination if they haven't sold out to the powerful, and even if an uncompromised, well-intensioned person were to somehow win, its doubtful they'd be able to change very much now that the governmental apparatus has become so large and unaccountable.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Kanye v Donald in 2020.

 

[nashhorn]

".....you say you want a revolution....woo..oh.... ".
Yes, yes I do. No one running today will seriously address what is my most critical issue, the unsustainable debt.

 

[zork]

What does this look like in electronic form:

https://keripeardon.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/wheelbarrows-of-money-and-the-weimar-republic/

“My father was a lawyer,” says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, “and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread.”

The Berlin publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote that an American visitor tipped their cook one dollar. The family convened, and it was decided that a trust fund should be set up in a Berlin bank with the cook as beneficiary, the bank to administer and invest the dollar. [By 1923, one dollar was worth one trillion marks.]

Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. “If you want to save money,” he was told, “and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time.”

A factory worker described payday, which was every day at 11:00 a.m.: “At 11:00 in the morning a siren sounded, and everybody gathered in the factory forecourt, where a five-ton lorry was drawn up loaded brimful with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on top. They read out names and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you had caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought just anything that was going.”

 

[iatrogenic]

What you say is important to you:

By and large, the fiscal issues are more important to me than the social issues, so I'd prefer to vote Republican.

So why do I usually vote with the donkeys?

What is actually important to you:

I am very sensitive to these issues

(as pointed out, some of these "issues" of discrimination are not discrimination at all, just politicians simply trying to uphold the Constitution)

so I'd prefer to vote Republican.

So let's narrow your choice of Republicans, since some want to ban Muslims and enforce immigration laws, to the following:

This election will be hard for me. There are two Democrats to choose between, one way too far left and the other way too sleazy. Ugh.

Because the anti-this and anti-that rhetoric from the right scares the crap out of me.

Here are a few "antis" from your two candidates relating to your "more important" fiscal issue: Anti-billionaire, Anti-capitalism/free market, anti-1%ers whether they are "good, bad or indifferent", which is really anti-anyone making $250,000 or more, anti-"Wall Street" (unless the candidate is raising money), anti-lowering taxes despite having the highest tax rates in the world, anti-budgetary constraint, anti-deficit reduction, anti-reduced regulations, anti-willingness to address gargantuan social security and medicare program deficit problems, etc.

I just cannot understand why Republicans don't think like you. Why can't they adopt your idea of voting for candidates that won't offend 11 million illegal aliens with talk of "no amnesty" as opposed to voting for candidates who at least want to try and bring fiscal sanity to a system that affects 360 million people.

 

[UTChE96]

Do I fear that the government is going to be rounding up Jews in the near future? No. Do I even worry that discrimination in the US hurts my business? Not really. But that doesn't change the fact that I am very sensitive to these issues, and the insensitivity coming from the right turns me off enough to make it almost impossible for me to vote for them.

I think tex_ex2000 correctly described your feelings as white guilt. The Democratic party is so radical that they cannot even say that all lives matter because it would offend some of their black members. And the only legal form of discrimination is against whites and asians. Your position is not based in reality but it is perfectly aligned with what the PC culture has told you to believe.

 

[iatrogenic]

What does this look like in electronic form:

https://keripeardon.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/wheelbarrows-of-money-and-the-weimar-republic/

Hello Venezuela......... The great giveaway there has produced the same results with the added cherries of more poverty and a higher murder rate. Long live the socialist system.

 

[Mr. Deez]

texas_ex2000 and UTChe are pretty much proving NJ's point. Rather than trying to empathize with him or address his concerns, you're both essentially dismissing them as unwarranted white guilt.

 

[UTChE96]

First of all, Donald Trump's moronic comments on Muslims were denounced by nearly every other Republican presidential candidate. I also suspect there are plenty of Democratic voters that probably agree with Trump's ridiculous comments. To attribute Trump's comments as being indicative of the Right is not a fair position. Idiocy is non-partisan.

Now that said, it is hard to take NJ's position as very independent or unbiased. It the Democrats who are so extreme that their Presidential candidates are scared to say that all lives matters. And as I pointed out earlier, it is the Democrats that support legalized discrimination against whites and Asians. So why is it that Democrat's support legal discrimination but NJ doesn't have a problem with that? I think the answer is that voters like him have been manipulated by a generation of political correctness in the media and in the classroom. No amount of empathy is going to change that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

First of all, Donald Trump's moronic comments on Muslims were denounced by nearly every other Republican presidential candidate. I also suspect there are plenty of Democratic voters that probably agree with Trump's ridiculous comments. To attribute Trump's comments as being indicative of the Right is not a fair position. Idiocy is non-partisan.

Now that said, it is hard to take NJ's position as very independent or unbiased. It the Democrats who are so extreme that their Presidential candidates are scared to say that all lives matters. And as I pointed out earlier, it is the Democrats that support legalized discrimination against whites and Asians. So why is it that Democrat's support legal discrimination but NJ doesn't have a problem with that? I think the answer is that voters like him have been manipulated by a generation of political correctness in the media and in the classroom. No amount of empathy is going to change that.

You're pointing out reasons why he shouldn't like Democrats, but that doesn't make a case why he should like the GOP. For whatever reason, he can stomach the Democrats' issues easier than he can stomach the GOP's. Could it be because of political correctness? Maybe, but that would be out of character for him. He's a pretty smart guy and thinks for himself. My guess is that he probably has a solid rationale, even if I likely would think it's wrong. Before presuming him to be dumbass who blindly follows the PC culture, perhaps you should simply ask him about this apparent inconsistency.

Will mere empathy get him to change his mind? No, but showing him disrespect certainly won't either. In fact that reinforces his reluctance to supporting the GOP. What empathy does do is open his mind further and make him more likely to listen to you. Why? Because when you show empathy, you also earn the credibility and respect to challenge his views on the merits. If he's going to change his mind and embrace conservatism or prioritize it highly enough to vote Republican, that's how it would happen.

 

[theiioftx]

This sounds like someone needs a "safe zone." I agree with the empathy argument, but his dislike for republican policy is quoted from a highly liberal source and reeks of the progressive indoctrination.

He adds in how he "shudders" regarding people who believe this is a Christian nation. Roughly 65-70 percent of Americans identify the US as a Christian nation and more than 75% identify as Christians. While our country was founded upon religious freedoms, it was heavily influenced by Christian founders. Regardless, one wanting empathy might not of thrown out this obvious "controversial" problem to garner his emotional needs.

 

[NJlonghorn]

texas_ex2000 and UTChe are pretty much proving NJ's point. Rather than trying to empathize with him or address his concerns, you're both essentially dismissing them as unwarranted white guilt.

This, and so much more. Not only are they not empathetic towards me (who cares), they can't conceive of the possibility that I, a white guy, may be genuinely empathetic towards others. Never mind that I come from a religious background that has experienced pervasive discrimination (enslavement, mass murder, expulsion, etc.) for millennia, right up to the present day. Nay, my revulsion towards how the right talks about Muslims must come from deep-seated guilt about how my white predecessors in the country treated African Americans.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The Pilgrims came over here not for religions freedom. On the contrary, they came here because the Roman and Anglican Church were too soft and wanted to establish a theocracy.

Yes, the Pilgrims came here for the freedom to establish communities in which their own religion could flourish. So did early-immigrant "Hindoos" (as was the prevalent spelling at the time), Jews, and atheists, not to mention other Christian groups besides the Pilgrims.

Our founding fathers rejected the idea that the US would be a Christian nation. They talked and wrote extensively about religious freedom for all. The Constitution banned religious tests for holding office (and voting? I don't recall). The entire text of the Federalists Papers does not make even an oblique reference to Christ or Christianity. The private writings of Washington, Jefferson, and others refers often to "god" or "our creator" but rarely to Christ. George Washington negotiated (and the Senate under Adams ratified) a treaty with Tripoli that explicitly stated that the US was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion".

No one running today will seriously address what is my most critical issue, the unsustainable debt.

This issue is why Kasich is my top choice of all of the major-party candidates right now. Unfortunately, he isn't really a choice, because it is only a matter of time before he bows out. I hope I'm wrong.

quoted from a highly liberal source

The article itself, and its author, are highly liberal. But media-rating agency AllSides rates The Week as centrist. AllSides acknowledges that The Week came close to getting a ranking of "Leaning Left", which I think is more accurate. But to call it "highly liberal" is way off. My favorite feature of The Week is its frequent "point/counterpoint" style articles where they have two columnists address an issue from opposite sides.

 

[Mr. Deez]

NJ, you've heard me and Larry discuss the ******* Penalty the GOP pays at the polls. It's on full display here. You're being shown no respect at all.

 

[UTChE96]

The OP essentially states that he votes for Democrats because the Right wing are generally a bunch of bigots albeit he said it in a nice way. Was this really a position that was expected to be "respected" by conservative posters on this board? Weird thread.

I am all for empathy but I am also for fairness. I didn't find the original post to be fair at all. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful (if the OP indeed took it that way), but I suggest not painting an entire group of people with such a broad brush next time.

 

[UTChE96]

The real irony in this thread is that conservatives are great people. Study after study shows that conservatives give more blood, time, and money to charity than liberals. But the narrative from the mass media is that conservatives are bigoted, hate-mongers, cheap, and exploitive. It's sad to see educated posters on this board fall for that tired narrative.

 

[theiioftx]

I am sorry for not showing more empathy and respect. But what else would you expect from a bigoted Christian republican?

 

[Mr. Deez]

The real irony in this thread is that conservatives are great people. Study after study shows that conservatives give more blood, time, and money to charity than liberals. But the narrative from the mass media is that conservatives are bigoted, hate-mongers, cheap, and exploitive. It's sad to see educated posters on this board fall for that tired narrative.

You are right. However, you are also an ambassador of your ideology. You are trying to sell it or should be trying to sell it to others, especially those who are telling you at least impliedly that they'd like to vote with you but have reservations. Instead of crapping on his concerns and suggesting that he's just falling for a false narrative (meaning that he's dumb), you should show him respect and try to see where he's coming from. Once you know that, then you can challenge his views, and because his mind is open, he might actually listen to you when you explain why his impressions aren't fair or accurate.

 

[theiioftx]

A quick search on Paul Waldman finds he is a solid progressive on all fronts. He seems to feel the Bern pretty strongly and is a regular on HuffPo.

 

[zork]

If it is bigoted to want the law followed wrt immigration and also to want to limit the rape/etc of American women by former Syrians as has occurred in Germany I guess I am guilty but not in agreement with the charges.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Hey...I'm just an underrepresented minority providing feedback to a white guy talking about his sensitivities. I'm the minority, how is it that we're taking about not being empathetic with NJ's experiences? That's the whole baffling paradox of white guilt.

The policies born from these sensitivities have been a net loss economically for minorities. Some have been good. A few have been cornerstone successes, but for the most part those policies have hurt communities with large minority and ethnic populations.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I don't have time for a point-by-point response, so I'll just throw out my thoughts.

As was pointed out in the Broadway show Avenue Q, everyone’s a little bit racist. But I would like to think, and do think, that most educated conservatives (including the conservatives who post here) are not bigoted in any meaningful sense.

I am much more concerned about the base, and the politicians who have no choice but to cater to that base. Am I oversensitive to what may be minimal issues? Perhaps. But even minimal amounts of religious bias set off my "oh crap, its starting again" alarm bells.

That said, my perception is that the undercurrent of religious bigotry in the far-right base is far from minimal. As one example, only 26% of those self-identifying as "conservative Republicans” believe it is important to avoid criticizing Islam as a whole, with 70% saying it is okay to speak bluntly even if that means being critical of Islam as a whole. If that isn’t an indicator of outright bigotry, it is at least a viewpoint that can spiral into outright bigotry if it isn’t nipped in the bud. Other polls establish a large majority of conservative Republicans being biased in other ways, such as against homosexuals. It is this type of religious-based bias that concerns me the most, because of its similarity to what my ancestors have experienced for, roughly speaking, the entirety of recorded history.

Yes, Donald Trump is the only candidate who has explicitly and whole-heartedly tapped into this bigotry in an attempt to court far-right voters. Regrettably, it has worked. Every time he says something outrageous about Muslims, he gets a bounce in the polls. This tells me that the bias is real, and that politicians who want the far-right vote have to cater to it.

Most of the Republican candidates seem to be walking a tight-rope, doing just enough to distance themselves from Trump but not doing any more than they have to, out of fear that they’ll alienate the far-right base. Several have lurched right to avoid seeming Muslim-friendly. Admittedly, this is a subjective opinion that can't really be backed up with data or quotes. But my perspective is that only Chris Christie and John Kasich have been loud and blunt in their defense of peaceful Muslims -- and look where that’s gotten them.

As on most issues, I am not an absolutist. Should there be limits on Muslim immigration, profiling against Muslim travelers, and monitoring of Arabic-language communications? Of course. But this has to be done with the utmost of care and moderation, and I don’t trust most of the politicians on the right to strike the right balance.

 

[iatrogenic]

70% saying it is okay to speak bluntly even if that means being critical of Islam as a whole. If that isn’t an indicator of outright bigotry, it is at least a viewpoint that can spiral into outright bigotry if it isn’t nipped in the bud.

Well, nip it in the bud then; Tell everyone how Islam was formed, how it spread from Medina, and what circumstances a Jew or Christian would face if they didn't join that merry band of Prophet loving, gentle souls. Tell us about the Caliphate then and now. Please, explain it and tell the bigots specifically why they are wrong. Try not to practice taqiyya while doing so.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Well, nip it in the bud then; Tell everyone how Islam was formed, how it spread from Medina, and what circumstances a Jew or Christian would face if they didn't join that merry band of Prophet loving, gentle souls. Tell us about the Caliphate then and now. Please, explain it and tell the bigots specifically why they are wrong. Try not to practice taqiyya while doing so.

I can tell your post was meant to be sarcastic, so I want to make sure I understand what you are saying:

Your point #1: Islam at its core is inherently violent towards non-believers.

Your point #2: People who say they are peaceful Muslims are just doing their best to blend in amongst us (taqiyya) until the day for action arrives.

Your point #3: We should do whatever is necessary to prevent Islam from taking root in the US.
​

Am I off base with any of this?

 

[zork]

Don't forget the rape.(aka sex emergency) Or the shitting in the pool.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...pool-after-having-too-much-sexual-energy.html

I can see lots of defenses for that. A good band name perhaps: Now presenting: Sexuaaaaal Eeeemergenceeee <guitar riffff>!?!

 

[Monahorns]

NJlonghorn, I don't know that your point #3 is a valid representation of conservative thought. Islamic people are in the US today and I haven't heard anything that Republican politicians are trying to force them out. In fact, I have read that in the US there are more acts of discrimination against Jews by Muslims than there are of anybody against Muslims. I don't think the US in general is against Muslims or allowing them to follow there religion. However, I also don't think we want things happening in our country as described in the attached link, but we do notice how the Koran is being used to justify immoral actions. I think we as Americans are justified to oppose the actions and the justifications of some Muslims in public and even in the political sphere. I can't see how that is an unreasonable position.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-securi...rob-infidel-women-only-in-some-circumstances/