Republicans Are Evil, Democrats Are Evil?
I remember the first time I heard this mantra. About five years ago, I got into a discussion with a couple of co-workers about politics. Contrary to what many of you may think, I generally avoid discussing politics in the workplace. Not much good can come of it.
The reason I got into this discussion was what one of my co-workers said. He said “Republicans are evil”. I was taken aback by such a strident statement. Not that someone would be critical of Republicans. But that someone would use such moralistic language to not just criticize policies emerging from a political party or ideology, but to question motives.
So I asked one of my co-workers. “Wouldn’t you agree though that both Republican and Democrats, conservatives and liberals want the same thing? They just have different ways to get there.” I was expecting him to back down and agree and then explain why he disagreed with Republican policies. Instead he proclaimed again “No, Republicans are really evil. They only want bad things. They want to oppress people.”
Now I know that this phenomena of proclaiming one’s political opponents to be the spawn of Satan is nothing new. However, this attitude has waxed and waned during the course of history, especially American history. And I would argue that our country is at its worst when this view is in ascendency, regardless of the ideology that holds it.
Read it in its entirety.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
29 Responses to “Republicans Are Evil, Democrats Are Evil?”
Pardon if I go off on a bit of a tangent, but this post got me thinking about something that’s been in my head for some time.
Something that has always confounded me is the way many liberals are capable of having such a double standard on some moral issues, depending entirely on who is taking the position. If a republican (or just a regular conservative) declares abortion immoral, homosexuality sin and says that religion is something that needs to be a central part of society, they will be declared a retrograde, or even evil, as the post shows. But Muslim societies get a pass, we have to “respect their culture†as different, not better or worse, despite the fact that, going down the issues, you can see plenty of similarities, only often it’s much more extreme. One would think that liberals would be the very first in line to defend our culture as more enlightened, to condemn the Iron Age customs practiced in many Muslim countries. Three causes to this curious phenomenon occur to me:
1. Far-left liberal teaching tells you that it’s only OK to piss on your own culture and the religion dominant in your society. Everyone else must be “respectedâ€. Failure to comply makes you a racist. Before anyone screams “straw-man!†I should note that this isn’t what I’ve heard, but how I was educated in what is probably one of the most liberal school districts in the country, San Francisco.
2. A sort of condescension that in part causes the point above. You internally feel superior to the other and therefore feel bad about messing with them. Like teasing the retarded kid for being stupid. You don’t expect much of these cultures so you don’t hold them to the same strict standard of who you really consider your cultural peers.
3. The difference in distance. Saying you “respect†the Muslim cultures is really easy…since you don’t have to suffer the consequences. They are far away, you don’t know any of them, and they cannot impose laws on you. You can say you think there’s nothing wrong with it, safe in the knowledge that your gay friends are safe, your career (if you’re female) will not be compromised, and you will not be forced to profess a faith you do not share. Republicans are close, they want laws you don’t want, if they dominate, things will happen in YOUR life. It makes it personal.
Let me note that I in no way think that ALL or even most liberals take this position, but I also can’t deny that there is a sector who does.
Lynx,
You’re right. Some liberals make no sense.
Now, should I list the ways that some conservatives make no sense?
That’s exactly what the post is about. We can always find despicable examples and wonder how these morons, miraculously always on the “other’ side, can possibly exist.
I think your’re proving the point.
Lynx is a ‘liberal’ albeit one who doesn’t agree with the tradional liberal policies on immigration and integration, and related subjects.
Anyway – you wrote a good post Lynx, I agree with it completely.
The original subject: it is true – there should be this idea that, in the end, both sides want what’s good for the country. Nowadays, both ‘sides’ in America seem to believe that their own side wants what’s best for America, while the other wants to destroy America, work with its enemies, etc.
Something must be done about that – and that’s also probably why Obama appeals to so many people.
No, Republicans are really evil. They only want bad things. They want to oppress people.â€
I would have to agree with your coworker. In a country that is rapidly making the ME, ME, ME generation of the 90′s look conservative the mantra that conservative Republicans preach is absolutely oppressive.
I just read the cia release and Breaking news. All the Presidents from the 50′s right up to Bush have been spying on Americans. Hell if you read it, they even spied on and Followed FOX news’ Britt Hume. Dang and as many of those were Democratic presidents and a liberal congress as not.
I have dubbed it the Nanny Principal. Mankind must be governed. He is incapable of governing himself. That is the very essence of why Mankind clings to religion. A cohesive bond that holds them together. A means to the end in which the people might be willing to be governed.
Liberals in America want that bond dissolved, or more accurately extremely limited. (Secularism, strict interpretation of the constitution). Liberals are fast becoming what Ronnie Reagan preached. Small Government. Less intrusive government. The liberal left has come to realize that the government must be limited in order to insure that they have their social wants and needs met.
Abortion rights, Gay rights, Drug legalization, Gun control and social programs that give away benefits such as welfare, food stamps etc. To this end the Liberal left is beginning to understand that SMALLER government and not larger government is the key to their happiness. Because smaller government insures that the government is not legislating laws that they do not agree with. IE. No gay marriage bill, restricting Abortion, restricting stem cell research etc.
This is the transformation I have been arguing that is not just going to occur in the next several years but in fact is happening today as we speak. Each party will ultimately embrace the other parties basic tenets.
The democratic party will mirror the Republican party embracing the RR. While the Republicans will embrace the social issues of the left and dump the RR creating a complete shift in political identities.
The only wild card I see emerging from all this is that today more then any other time in History I actually see a third party emerging from the ashes of both the left and the right that could embrace the wants and needs of the middle.
So yes. Those Republicans are evil. They want to oppress people because they do not agree with the lefts social agenda. The easy target is to paint the RR as the culprit. Yet I know many, many conservative Republicans that have never graced the halls of church in their life. Religion has just become the scape goat in this era of talking points instead of thoughtful discussion.
The major problem comes not from Liberals nor Conservatives, but people who call themselves that when they are not.
PC Elitists who wanna ban books and sneer at religiots are in no way liberal. Right Wing Christians who wanna cut down old forests, peer into bedrooms, and control women’s bodies are in no way conservative.
That is why terms like Left and Right exist.
I am liberal on social policies and conservative fiscally. But, I am no Leftist nor Rightist. These are consistent traits.
It’s the inconsistent folk who make the titular claims.
I find that true as well- it is an inherent trait in humanity to falsely self-identify with a particular group in order to deflect potential exclusion/repression.
that’s why people like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Al Franken et al exist. They are all wearing masks.
MVDG-
You proved the point, again.
At bottom of much of the animosity lies the need to define and describe the ‘other’, whoever that many be, and ourselves in political terms. This person is a libeal, that person is a conservative. This puts people into boxes and creates imaginary groups when similar views on one topic may be all some people have in common.
It was a much healthier atmosphere when people identified each other by their astrological signs: “Hi, I’m a Pisces.” Pisces had no trouble talking to Libra..
Now, it’s: “Hi, I’m a moderate conservative on religious issues, but a far left liberal on social programs.”
This immediately puts a barrier up between people and invites argumentative debate instead of a relaxed conversation where common intererests might be found.
It’s, of course, worse when an ‘other’ is defined like this. There is too much room for mischaracterization, for one thing. For another, the emphais on political leanings may leave out the most important thing about the person, that he is a beekeeper who loves the outdoors.
BTW, I agreed with Lynx in her assessment of some political thought. I just wish we weren’t defining a group on the merits (or lack of) of tha thinking but could stick to analyzing the thinking itself.
I’m an Aquarius, BTW, and prefer to described as one rather than by my political ‘box’.
Lynx, you hit that one for a good solid triple, if not out of the park. I’d say that to some extent, the worst elements of the liberal extremists contain some degree of all three of your elements. But yes, I think you are right on the money. The notion that everyone else is better than your own society can be a toxic element – as can the notion that your society alone has been blessed.
Somebody, I think I would disagree with your conclusion that Republicans are evil, just as I would disagree with the far-right argument that all Democrats are evil because they support gay marriage, gun control, abortion etc. I think much of what is wrong with our polarized society is the extremism that has become accepted as normal. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (BDS) is simply a replacement for “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” (CDS), and both are examples of extremist thinking – “I’m correct, so the other position cannot be logically held by anyone who isn’t a moron or evil.” That is very poor logic.
I do think one reason the crazies on either fringe have been so successful is that both parties have given the extreme elements in their ranks a pass because they have thought that it was better to keep them in the party than to encourage them to leave. Both parties have to take their hits for this. Republicans have to answer for why they allowed the country to waste all that money impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair – or investigating Vince Foster’s suicide to absurdity, or sweetheart deals for big corporations. Democrats have to answer for much of the same kind of thing, such as tolerating racial bigots like Al Sharpton as valued members of the party, and pushing concepts like abortion well beyond the electorate to please their vocal fringe. Presidents from both parties have cheerfully manipulated the law or avoided the law when they thought it was expedient. FDR was a master at it – perhaps second only to Lincoln. One last thought, Somebody – you are right that both parties may come to mirror each other, but at the present, I see little evidence of that happening. The most strident wing of the Democratic party, the folks who think KOS is kool, don’t want to reduce government, and they are, as Lynx notes, two faced about it. They are all for keeping the government out of personal lives in the case of abortion, and all for getting involved to promote gay marriage. Rational arguments can be made for or against these two positions. Ultimately, the decision should come from the legislative process, meaning that the people have generally supported it, rather than a judicial mandate.
So are Republicans evil? Or are Democrats evil? Maybe we as a general thing would be better served by looking for truly thoughtful, quiet commentary instead of the flame throwing that typifies sites like Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs. Yes, flames can be entertaining – I like a good bon mot as much as the next guy. Yes, both sometimes have worthwhile opinions, but the noise to signal ratio is too high for my taste. Which is why I like this blog – I don’t always agree with the comments, but most of the bloggers and commentators are thoughtful, and express themselves well.
Can we get back to sanity? It will not be easy. Both parties have given their worst elements a pass, and I see little evidence that this will change in the near term.
Tim F sums up my view
Politics is so Orwellian; the man was an absolute genius.
Liberals/Democrats as the ‘small, limited government’ party? Conservatives/Republicans as the ‘big government nanny-state’ party?
It goes on and on. As each party defines some position ‘X’, the other party simply takes the opposite view. If ‘X’ becomes popular, and the opposition comes into power, then they co-opt ‘X’ as their own, and the original party immediately then reverses and now opposes ‘X’.
It is grand theater, with the only goal re-election, majority status, and control of the Federal largesses to supporters.
I won’t say both are evil; I will say both are equally corrupt, though.
My reaction is this is ultimately more about human psychology (psychosis, more aptly) than politics per se.
We have evolved away from a culture/form of government promoting personal independence to one of dependence. At the same time, technology and general affluence have made most people lazy and wimpish.
Thus, we want to have our way/beliefs granted, but most people have done little to succeed with that on their own. They need other people to grant them their wishes……and when those people don’t, they demonize them…..as does the five year old that doesn’t get his/her way.
This “collectivism” is needed by both the religious right and the socialist liberal.
As a libertarian, I have my own verbal epithet……a pox on both their houses!
Doma: It’s not the self-ID that’s the problem, but the reactions to it. I don’t go telling folk I write poetry, I’m an Aquarius, or that I’m a New York Giants fan, unless it comes up, but if a Redskins fan wants to slug me cuz I love the Giants, whose problem is that?
Again, the labels are not the problem, their misuse is.
Orson: ‘“Bush Derangement Syndrome†(BDS)’
The best fit for that are the tireless defenders of Bush, not his critics, as Bush has proven, esp. since re-election, that he cares not a whit of the people’s will. The last few years are wholly indefensible. After 9/11. through the first few mos. of the War, I gave Bush benefit of the doubt. But lie upon lie, demonization upon demonization- and it started with Bushco and Rove, and there’s no defending the man nor his policies. To even argue that his presidency has been merely weak is to show a total lack of American and world history. Even a few mos. ago, on this blog, i was still willing to argue Bush had rivals in Reagan, LBJ, and Nixon, for the worst Prez of recent times. But every day he allows the monstrous Dick Cheney to stay around, that he defends a liar like Libby, that he dooms Americans to utterly pointless deaths, and worst of all, does almost nothing to actually get the terrorists, shows that he is digging out gutters below gutters.
This does not make him evil, per se, but the worst and most incompetent Prez- likely so. That is not politics, but history speaking.
Austin: ‘I won’t say both are evil; I will say both are equally corrupt, though.’
So, I assume you’re through with the duolopy. Will it be Nader or Bloomberg in ’08?
CO: ‘As a libertarian, I have my own verbal epithet……a pox on both their houses!’
Are you a real civil libertarian or merely a corporate shill, like the LIbertarian Party?
Cos – I am planning to vote for Dave Barry.
Dave Barry for President 2008
How is the Libertarian Party a corporate shill? They take far less campaign dollars from corporations than do the Democrats or the Republicans.
I think you’re confusing capitalism (which is what the Libertarian Party promotes) with corporatism (which is what Democrats and Republicans with close ties to big business, lobbying groups, and the military industrial complex promote).
Nick, the Libs are always siding w corps against individual interests. If you watch them speak on C-Span, they are basically Right Wingers sans Christian dogma.
Libertarians (small l) have the silent ‘civil’ in front of the term, something the Lib Party has forgotten.
I mostly agree with Mikkel’s take. Looking at issues as black/white good/evil enemy/friend, etc, just enables politicians to demagogue and prevents rational thought. If Republicans or Democratsare the enemy, than what are the terrorists?
I read a column by ultraconservative Bob Novak (of Valerie Plame fame) where he castigates Schwarzennegger for capitulating to the enemy. (not the terrorists- the Democratic majority in California) Novak would apparently prefer that the Gubernator stand on principle and achieve gridlock. But imo, he is a success story- a conservative who was flexible enough to actually rule as the majority wished.
cos,
You’d have to give me a specific example. Libertarians believe very strong in property rights as being among our most fundamental individual freedoms, and as such, typically look down upon government regulations of businesses.
In terms of siding with corporations, the Libertarian Party has been a very vocal critic of the military industrial complex, corporate welfare, and agricultural subsidies.
Cosmoetica said”
“…the labels are not the problem, their misuse is.”
I agree, adding that overuse is an equal problem.
The obsession with political identities bothers me, though, and the fact that we talk less about ideas than about the people who have the ideas.
Libertarians have also been for tax breaks for corps, as well as often siding with the Big Box stores that ruin local economies.
Lynx said:
So true — on this site, TLV, included…
Orson Buggeigh:
(The nihilism and self-loathing, not merely neurotic, misplaced guilt, that is part of radicalised leftism since the 1960s)
Somebody:
They want government to be not only their magic genie, fairy godmother, and Santa Claus, but first and foremost their surrogate parent — just one that is extremely permissive (ME, ME, ME) when it comes to personal behavior.
But they don’t want smaller government — just fewer restrictions on their personal behavior, while they want more interventionism about everything else, and in fact more government when it comes to some personal behavior — social engineering (forced “diversity,” forced conservation, and so on).
It was said, about our collectivist and modern-welfare-state entitlement culture:
Or in the past, not interfering with or destroying this,
What we see with so many childish, self-absorbed bloggers, who like to bash so many things and write as though they believe they and their lives are the center of the universe (the comments that follow blog postings are more interesting than most blog postings themselves), is classic narcissism, characteristic of a two-year-old who never has grown up. They behave as though they truly believe the universe is centered around themselves, it is impossible to find fault with them, and any time they don’t get their way, it’s an outrage.
cos,
Libertarians supports tax breaks for everyone because they, on principle, oppose taxation and therefore want taxes to as low as possible. It’s not about being pro-corporation. It’s about being anti-taxation.
Libertarians side with Big Box stores because they believe that government should not be in the business of relating businesses–whether their small business or big businesses. Libertarians believe that the hysteria over Big Box stores like Walmart, who have every right to sell their goods to willing customers, is unfounded. And on that point, I agree with them.
If you don’t like Big Box stores, it’s your right to boycott these stores and to support their competition. It’s not the government’s right to prevent such stores from existing.
Not even in the People’s Republic of Vermont.
Nick says
I assume Nick means regulating. No regulation of business is of course a good thing. Businesses always do good and can always be counted on to not pollute, lie, manufacture shoddy products or do anything else that might harm other people. And of course since they would never do any of those things it’s perfectly reasonable to weaken government so that those businesses have absolutely no countervailing power to rein them in.
Jim,
Yes, where I wrote “relating businesses” I meant to write “regulating businesses.”
I believe government has some role to play in regulation of business in that no business should be allowed to engage in fraud or pour hazardous waste into rivers or lakes.
The point I am trying to make in response to cosmo’s remarks is that there’s nothing inconsistent about Libertarians supporting positions that happen to favor businesses. Libertarians–by definition–oppose government regulation, so it’s only natural that Libertarians would be sympathetic to any business (regardless of how big it is or what it sells) that is having to abide by some arbitrary law created by the government.
There seems to be a knee-jerk response by some people against “Big Business” in that any business perceived to be too big and powerful must be “evil”–leading to the perception that anything the government does to regulate that business must therefore be “good.”
Such people must understand that there is world of difference between corporations like Haliburton, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and the pharmaceutical industry, which receive preferential treatment (i.e. no-bid contracts) from the government and spend billions of dollars to lobby congress to write laws in their favor versus corporations such as Apple and Microsoft, which make money by creating popular, innovative products which are then sold competively in the market place.
Cosmo criticized Libertarians for their supposed connection to corporations. But chances are, Cosmo’s local congressman (whether Democrat or Republican) is probably steering Cosmo’s taxpayer money to some corporation (through the earmarking process) as we speak. Some corporation out there is being subsidized by Cosmo’s congressman–not because that corporation has earned that money but because that corporation happens to be in the good graces of Cosmo’s congressman (or more likely, helped fund said congressman’s re-election campaign).
Libertarians are vehemently oppose this, because unlike pseudo-capitalists who claim to oppose welfare, Libertarians oppose all forms of welfare–including corporate welfare.
Libertarians have the reputation of being “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal”, but that doesn’t mean that agree with Republicans on every fiscal issue or with Democrats on every social issue. It would be unfair to judge Libertarian’s stance on fiscal policy based upon supposedly “capitalist” positions of the neoconservative wing of today’s Republican Party.
Amen.
Most libertarians would prefer no tax on businesses. You may call it a tax, but businesses call it an expense. Another hurdle that must be cleared before a profit can be made. You want to slip in some hidden taxes on the little guy, keep taxing business.
Regulation, like taxes, has a fine line between being helpful and hurtful. Tax to high and you are basically eating your “seed corn”. Regulate to much, and your asking business, read special interest, to go to Washington to protect themselves. Just like a dog chasing its tale.
Congratulations to Nick Rivera.
He, unlike the usual supects on this site, has stated what’s good about his political views, instead of focusing on ‘defining; what’s bad about everyone else’s.
Also, I appreciated the note of realism, as per acceding that some regulation of business might be necessary (hazardous waste disposal).
That makes me wonder:
-What about dangerous materials in products, like lead paint used in toys, or products that can explode, etc. etc?
-What about dangerous work conditions, like the lack of escape routes in case of fire?
I’m not looking for specific answers, BTW. I’m just pointing out that economic theories and political theories work best when they are just that – theories
Once they are implemented, real consequences occur and have to be accomodated.
A mojor consequence that theories can afford to ignore pre-implemantation is the affect on real people. If everything works out, we have achieved paradise. Paradise is not for this world, however.
Should enough people be negatively affected, they will not go quietly into the night. They will form a backlash. Whether their complaints are justified or not will not matter at that point. They will have their say and their impact.
With any policy, there are winners and losers. Not calculating the scope and impact of the losers is the major mistale of most over-ardent advocates of any theory. You can call them morons or moral degenerates, the losers will be there, living next door. You can’t wish them away.
Before I start wearing a political label, I would need to see the plan for dealing with the negative consequences, not just the accolades for the positive.
Listing the negatives of other political views is not a substitued for dealing with one’s own, BTW.
-