What Democrats & Republicans Believe
February 3rd, 2008Reprinted from Larry Elder’s column in the Orange County Register:
Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you – to the fullest extent possible – to keep what you earn. Democrats believe that success results from luck, chance and happenstance, and therefore a just government takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.
Republicans believe in a colorblind society determined by drive, work ethic and talent. Democrats want a color-coordinated society. This explains the support for race and gender-based preferences to “correct” past sins and to create “diversity.”
Republicans believe discrimination to fix previous discrimination remains discrimination, and that all a government can be is just in its own time. Democrats wish to use government to “rectify” past wrongs, which they hold responsible for today’s “inequities.”
Republicans believe that government should empower the individual – that a government that taxes least taxes best. Democrats want individuals to empower government, and support policies that redistribute income from person A to “deserving” person B.
Republicans believe that the playing field, while unlevel, requires an individual to do the best he or she can with the cards dealt. Democrats consider life rigged, and that one’s destiny rests on matters beyond the control of the individual.
Republicans believe that those who cannot help themselves can and will be helped out by other individuals – not government – as a result of basic human compassion. Democrats believe that because of one’s misfortune, he or she is entitled to something – via government – from someone else.
Republicans believe in peace through strength, and thus support strong national defense, and – in this era of Islamofascism – a proactive foreign policy. Democrats believe in strength through peace, and believe they can better influence the behavior of enemies by demonstrating our good intentions.
Republicans believe in the mutual benefits of free trade of goods and services. Democrats believe in “fair trade,” and support barriers that shield domestic industries against competition, reducing the incentive to innovate and change to remain competitive.
Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government. Democrats consider the Constitution a “living, breathing document,” to be interpreted flexibly. Republicans, for example, reject Roe v. Wade because the court based it on a right to privacy, not mentioned in the Constitution. Democrats consider the right to privacy implied, despite the absence of any reference to it.
Republicans believe in the Second Amendment, and that it confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers wanted this right to protect against tyranny by government. Democrats consider the Second Amendment an impediment to public safety.
Michigan, six years ago, became one of about 40 “shall issue” states that now allow citizens to apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons. At the time, law enforcement officials predicted an increase in violent crime. In fact, the opposite happened.
Woodhaven, Mich., Police Chief Michael Martin said, “I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected. There are problems with gun violence, but I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn’t happen.”
So how did the president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March respond? She called the statistics bogus, and argued that even if true, society still possesses too many guns.
And this brings us to our final observation:
Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The words of this writing are so true as to make it hard to believe our Democrat bothers and sister are allowed to vote! Isn’t there a statute that makes voting by a person devoid of his/her senses illegal? If no statute exists then, Senator Beers, draft and present one forthwith!
Additionally, if we look at the South American countries that have outlawed guns, we will learn that crimes in these counties have increased due to the fact that ,the criminals have guns while law abiding citizens do not!
February 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Thanks for the article, Bob, but where are the republicans he describes?
From what I see, the “republican” crop in Washington DC for the last 8 years reflects more closely the democrat psychosis, “seeing what they believe”. Thus we suffer through illegal immigration with porous borders, our economy going through enormous challenge due to our loss of jobs to third world hell holes, bigger government, bigger spending, etc. etc.
Unfortunatly, John McCain is one of those smitten with the democrat psychosis. Seems like real republicans can’t seem to get anywhere near an elected position in our national government.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I agree with Jim. I see nothing resembling true Republicanism today. What we have now is Repugnicanism. It goes beyond what we even had locally with Kenny Guinn since it is costing our country in both lives, prestige, and in treasure.
If the government is going to abuse PATRIOT for every non-terror crime under the sun, I wish they would use it in Nevada for corruption investigations into the CCSD, the union leaders, the police department, and the legislators that push so hard to see that we are robbed.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I agree with Doug and Jim. If you insisit on forwarding these messages I’ll assume you are part of the ‘hate the other’ dysfunctional crowd.
“Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you – to the fullest extent possible – to keep what you earn.” I have a fair grasp on the amount of government subsidies, i.e. taking my money and giving it to another, to businesses in Nevada and the world over. Is that Republicanism?
“Republicans believe in the mutual benefits of free trade of goods and services. Democrats….support barriers that shield domestic industries against competition, reducing the incentive to innovate and change to remain competitive.” I know about the foreign sugar tariffs that the Republican initiated and continued; I know about the $20bn a year in subsidies to corn farmers so ADM, Cargill and Cocal Cola have subsidized products; I know Reagan wanted a ten year wean off period for farm subsidies-it never got done. Is this Republicanism?
“Republicans believe in the Second Amendment” and you know that there has not been one supreme court decision that supports the right of Americans to have any old gun they want, right? Not one. The last case was Miller in 1939, and a couple in mid 19th century. The Heller case will be heard this year by the USSCT, but it is a D.C. case and not a State’s Right case. Certainly the Republican’s could have brought a case to the USSCT in 200 years to prove their point. Why haven’t they? Is that Repubicanism?
As for Roe v Wade….the right to privacy is not in the Constitution (perhaps a better argument is the equal protection clause), and that’s correct, therefore, it is left to the people, just like our founders intended. They clearly wrote the bill of rights to please the Virginia delegation, knowing that they had to insert some example of rights, however, it was and is well known that it would be impossible to put them all in the contract, thus, “This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” You know that until the USSCT case of Griswald in the 1960’s discussing birth control with you doctor was illegal, right? Right to privacy opened that door to a full contract between a patient and their doctor concerning their healthcare. Your saying it should still be illegal? Is that Republicanism?
Should we assume that you have retreated from statesmanship and are now channeling Ann Coulter?
February 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
To Mark D:
Your argument “You know that until the USSCT case of Griswald in the 1960’s discussing birth control with you doctor was illegal, right? Right to privacy opened that door to a full contract between a patient and their doctor concerning their health care. Your saying it should still be illegal?
Is that Republicanism?”
is specious one, not a Republican position, but typical of the overreach of modern politics and juries prudence.
Since there is no right enumerated in the Constitution to the State to interfere in health care questions, this is by default one of the rights of the citizens of this nation.
There are few USSCT “findings” or Constitutional Amendments that have improved on the Constitution.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’ll add my agreement to that of Jim, Doug, and Mark D. In a book I read recently, the two major parties were referred to as socialist party “A” and socialist party “B”. That comes very close.
The only real Republican in the current presidential race is Ron Paul.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
After reading this article, the only difference I see is that people on the extreme sides of the political fence employ the same logic and hatred of the other side and rarely look at the true facts. Both sides use the government to advance their agenda and in some cases to the detriment of our great nation, like now!
I am a retired USAF Master Sergeant like my father before me. I have lived in most regions of our great country, Europe, and Asia. I have seen Communism, dictatorships and democracy up close and personal. I consider myself a person of this planet, a husband, father, grandfather, a proud American, moderate to liberal politically, then lastly affiliated with a political party which happens to be the Democratic Party. I too like the idea of fewer taxes, smaller government and a strong military. And, I do believe that our constitution is a great document that I feel no one amendment is greater then the other.
When I took the oath of enlistment it was to protect and defend the constitution not just certain sections of it. I am amazed that conservatives would agree to warrant-less wiretaps when they have so much distain and distrust for the federal government. I theorized that if the current president would have a (D) at the end of his name I bet that the republicans would take the same position as the democrats do now.
I believe history is on my side, during the nineties with Clinton’s involvement in the Balkans; the republican leadership then sure sounded like democratic leadership now. As a society we seem to be more concerned about labeling the other side instead of working together. When I hear the “Tax & Spend Democrats”, I label the conservatives as “The Borrow & Spend Republicans”, which is a fact! Beginning with the President Reagan, the size of government, spending, the national debt and number of times the government raised taxes were greater under republican administrations than the democratic administration! The OBM historical reports on the web further solidifies my statement.
This war in Iraq is bleeding our country dry when the real power of our enemy is in Pakistan. What is the goal of Al Qaeda? To hit us hard! The best weapon for that is a nuke and who has those nukes; Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan? Time is on their side as well as Al Qaeda having a safe sanctuary in Pakistan where they are not going anywhere. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. We need to regroup and rebuild, then go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan and destroy them to the very last man. That is what the democrats are calling for, not for a continuous war in Iraq. Iraq has the talent and the resources (OIL) to solve their problems. We have given them a great opportunity and now is the time for them to step up. Isn’t that one of your main conservative themes? Practice what you preach and let us work together to destroy our true enemy where they really are at.
Lastly, here is a question for you conservatives; if we left Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan where do you think the Al Qaeda fighters will go? Would they fight us in our country or fight us there?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Jerry, you are a sage man and a good judge of our Government. No single policy decision stands out, however. Iraq is just like Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Grenada, etc. in that it focuses only on support for the military-industrial complex. Fighting wars keeps the rich rolling in dough and the incumbents rolling in job security. Only the American people can change this and they insist on voting for the “socialist party A” or “socialist party B” as described by Al (exactly right). This is not a promising prospect.
Is there any logic or evidence that the central government can manage ANYTHING better than the individual States? I see none. Yet, we continue to allow substantially increased Federal budgets each year. The deficit continues to rise as does the “debt ceiling” (ever increasing the enslavement of our citizens). This is a bipartisan (a scary word if ever there was one) effort. It is a truly freightening scenario, but one we have complete control of (and therefore, complete blame for).
I had exactly the same reaction as Jim did: Where are these “republicans” he is describing and, if they exist, why aren’t they making theirselves know? It is very difficult to find these principles within our Government since FDR turned on the socialism spigot.
It is extremely insulting for Larry Elder to insinuate that any of the very promising “republican values” are related to anything that the “Republican Party” is doing. Sure, they talk a good game, but they pander to the “vote me some benefits” crowd just like the “Democratic Party”. We eat it up hook, line, and sinker. Shame on us.
This blog, however, seems to have some objective thinkers in its audience. I fail to see what drives Al to Ron Paul and Jerry to the “democrats”. Each of these are polished politicians saying what you want to hear. If Ron Paul is so great, how come he has been in the Senate all these years channeling money back to his district (answer: he wants to keep his job). If the democrats cared so much about “the people”, why would they advocate paying them minimal sums to become slaves instead of fostering their God-given gifts to improve themselves?
My first reaction at reading this article was to throw up. It is the biggest bunch of hype placed in one article that I have seen in a long time. The principals are right on, but they have not visited the American scene since WWII, and a case can be made that they have not been espoused since before the Civil War.
Thomas Jefferson supported the authors of the Federalist Papers (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Monroe) in their effort to encourage the American public to support a centralized Government. It was not a popular idea. Having suffered under the oppressive King George III of England (far less oppressive than our central government today), the populace supported the Articles of Confederation which described how the individual colonies would interact without a central Government. The brave founding fathers stuck to their guns and convinced Americans that a very weak central Government would be better able to bring properity and security to all. Thomas Jefferson often pondered the dangers of a central government, but clearly stated that, if given the power over their government, people would not be stupid enough to relinquish it. It is clear he was wrong and all of us will suffer the consequences. Too bad. It really was a great idea.