This is my super long-winded way of getting to my point, which is that THIS is why I vote for progressive candidates and causes.
All children deserve the same sense of security and safety that my children have. Regardless of the color of their skin or the country that they come from or the financial circumstances that they were born into, all children deserve to feel safe and secure and to have enough to eat. That is my core belief.
That’s fine, but in my view, you’re using children as a human shield to avoid having to drill down deeper into issues.
How? Saying “it’s about children” can turn any political viewpoint into a virtue. When in reality, children’s welfare is only one of a boatload of variables that must be balanced in order to have a functioning economy and good governance.
I can use “children’s welfare”, taken to it’s logical extreme, to destroy the notion that our country should have any border control at all. Then everyone comes immigrates in (with their children), and they’d be no better off here than where they were, because our economy would be destroyed.
Asking them to be a part of the solution, to help stop the madness of what is happening under this administration. To put principle over party. To put reason over Republicanism.
Hmmm. From a POLICY standpoint…..what madness are you talking about? Obviously there’s some issues that can be debated, but Trump’s actual governance ACTIONS (not words, actions) are pretty much standard vanilla conservative economics, backed by no shortage of history and research. If Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina…..you name it, had been elected instead of Trump, you’d be getting pretty much the same thing. Just without the tweets and the presidential verbal diarrhea.
We’ve had some interesting back-and-forths. But I’m left feeling a bit empty, a bit defeated, about the people I know who continue to vote Republican despite saying they care about things like allocating more resources for teachers and veterans.
Hmmm again. Allocating resources for teachers has close to nothing to do with national politics; that’s all local. And Trump HAS allocated more resources for veterans; not hugely (it’s mostly been expanding and extending some bipartisan bills first signed under Obama) but it is an increase in resources allocation.
Who continue to vote Republican despite saying they deplore gun violence.
Well, that’s basically because nothing outside of a Constitutional amendment is going to move the needle on gun violence. All the things the Democrats are suggesting don’t really move the needle.
Who continue to vote Republican because they can, because it won’t hurt (and might even help) their own financial security, even as so many people are suffering.
The best thing you can do for people struggling financially is to create a robust jobs environment for them to prosper in. A paycheck is always bigger than a welfare check, after all.
Who will vote Republican in Texas despite saying “If it makes you feel any better, I hate Ted Cruz, too.” No, that does not make me feel any better. Because why are you wasting your vote on someone you hate?
Answer: I don’t vote for people, I vote for policies. In 2016, the presidential candidate with the better policy proposals from my (economic) viewpoint was an asshole; but he got my vote anyway. Same in 2018 with Cruz; Beto doesn’t have a solid grasp on economics.
And the number one reason they give for not being able to vote for a Democrat is that they believe in small government. What. The. Fuck. Does. This. Even. Mean.
It means that as the federal government grows bigger and more powerful, the citizen becomes smaller and less powerful. The more money they take from you in taxes, the less money you have for discretionary spending.
Bigger Government = authoritarianism
Higher Taxes = authoritarianism
More Regulation = authoritarianism
This is pretty much why we conservatives belly-laugh when we hear Democrats clutching their pearls over Trump’s “authoritarianism.” Authoritarians don’t make the size of government smaller; authoritarians don’t lower taxes; authoritarians don’t deregulate the economy.
They don’t really have to think about the icky stuff like white supremacy and children being kept in cages, because they like small government, damn it!
Incorrect. We think about it quite a bit. We know from data that the number of white supremacists in the US is quite small and not a threat to anyone. We know that the “children in cages” (which was never really true, you know) was a policy that preceded Trump and was put in place to protect children, not harm them (you really don’t want to keep children with their parents if their parents are going to adult prisons, after all).
But what does that mean? I’d love to know from anyone in my own life how the size of government affects their own lives AT ALL.
Well, I’m not in your life, but I can answer that question.
I have relatives in Sweden. They are not affluent, as they are refugees who went there about forty years ago. My brother in law is retired, my sister in law still works, although she’s mid-sixties. They have a government pension, government housing, government healthcare, you name it. Government, government, government.
Even before my b-i-l retired, because taxes were so high, even on people of limited means, they had virtually no money for discretionary spending. It takes her 2–3 years to save up enough money to come over here for Christmas, and she comes alone.
So, taxation definitely affects quality of life, in that it decreases discretionary cash-on-hand. Is the balance worth it? Lots of Swedes disagree. They have been lowering their tax rates for four decades to find that “balance” between social services and a robust economy.
The regulatory issue is less clear; however, all regulations have a cost of compliance. When the government increases the cost of doing business, the business almost always “retrieves” that increased cost from the employees, either by layoffs. freezing new hiring, cutting back on raises…..you name it. So, a less egregious regulatory environment is good for employees; it’s just that you don’t see it as clearly, because there are more dots to connect between the cause and effect.
I’d love for them to give me examples of what Republicans in recent years have done to reduce the size and role of government. Is Ted Cruz a champion of small government? Really? Tell me how.
- Corporate Tax Reform
- Deregulation across many business sectors
- Individual Tax Cuts
- Pulled back on several “deals”, like the TPP and the Paris Accords, which require that the US subject itself to even LARGER trans-governmental authorities.
And Cruz provided votes and support for those.
Where is YOUR passion? What do you stand for? What do you believe in? Where is your soul?
The most robust economy possible. Why? Because if everyone is working and making money, then a HUGE number of our perceived social problems suddenly look less important.
Is your right to have a “small government” and pay less in taxes more important than the rights of your fellow humans to live with dignity, to have enough to eat, to feel safe and secure in their families?
This is what is generally known as a “false choice” or a “false dichotomy”. It implies that a small government with a modest taxation scheme cannot exist simultaneously with social objectives.
That’s false, prima facie. See comment above regarding “robust economy”.
This may not be election where things flip, particularly in super-red Texas. But the day is coming. The dinosaurs of the right are dying off.
Hmmmmm. The % of the electorate that is of retirement age and above will continue to increase until 2045 or so. So, basically (assuming you’re a millenial) you’re their bitch until YOU’RE a dinosaur yourself.
But, that’s besides the point, really. One party government is so bad that it never lasts long. Watergate should have made the GOP a dead party; six years later they elected Reagan by historic margins. Bush II, with Iraq and Katrina and a meltdown, was so bad that the GOP were wiped out in 2006 and 2008; in 2010, the GOP won a historic number of House seats, and won the Senate in 2012.
And then, also, people change. If the far-left radicals of the 1960’s had stayed far-left radicals, we’d have a European style social democracy by now. But they didn’t; they cut their hair, got MBA’s, and voted for Reagan.
Evangelicals are coming to terms with the fact that hatred of gays and immigrants doesn’t totally jibe with what Jesus intended. Millennials are way too open-minded about their LGBTQ friends and about people from other countries and cultures and colors to keep putting up with this shit. Women are fucking done with a patriarchal society that pushes (white/privileged) men into positions of power despite their misogyny and mistreatment of women.
Yes, this is called “evolution”. Don’t expect it to lead all in the direction of one party, though; history teaches us otherwise.
So enjoy your last gasp of what it means to be a Republican in the modern age.
No worries. There will be more “gasps”. :-) It is a lesson of history.
Legitimate conservativism lost its soul when it got in line with Trump.
Legitimate conservativism is not in line with Trump. It is in line with Hayek and Friedman, like it always has been. It unfortunately must tolerate politicians who deviate. Kind of like how the Democrats will all look the other way if they nominate Cory Booker or Kamala Harris, and not notice the massive amounts of corporate donations they’ve taken.
You still have a chance to use your voice for something good. Hope you’ll take it.
Always do. But I’m not going to use it voting for batshit crazy economics.