Why I will never vote for most Republicans, and will occasionally vote for Democrats

[Cowlesy]

Social-liberalism has in effect nothing in common with classical liberalism. Therefore, saying you are a classical liberal with "some social" is like saying you are a "little knocked up". The latter, present in even a sub-clinical dosage, pollutes and negates the former in toto. Let us take that splendid Wikipedia article you cited:



The third paragraph causes the article to pretty well assassinate the concept of social-liberalism, however unintentionally, where it states:



This sentence is so fraught with contradiction as to set the clear and capable mind at odds with itself in making the decision where to begin the demolition. But let us move forward in just a most cursory manner and we will discover a few points that in themselves offer sufficiency to destroy the credibility of social-liberalism and demonstrate why one cannot be that as well as a classical-liberal, all in the spirit of setting you straight that you may err no more from this point onward.

Firstly, the notions of "social justice" and "human rights" are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one with the other - the relation ship is what we call in the sciences "exclusive or", which is to say, one or the other ONLY. If one defends human rights, and here we are speaking properly defined rights and not the airy-fairy bullshit the so-called "social-liberal" believes the term to mean, there is no possibility to impose the conditions of "social justice" upon people as those conditions are inherently violent to the rights of the individual. One trivial yet sufficient example in proof of this is the notion of redistribution of wealth where the fruits of one's labors are forcibly extracted and given to those "less fortunate". This is the fundamental core pillar of the concept of "social justice" and is at prima facie odds with that of human rights. QED.


"Social markets", vis-a-vis free markets is a similar relationship. So-called "social-markets" are those based not upon properly derived human rights but rather on the wholly erroneous definition that must be used in order for the structure of the concept of "social-liberalism" to be internally consistent in at least the minimally passable degree. Being so based, social-markets substitute properly derived human freedom with that of arbitrarily defined "social justice". As above, the two cannot exist together and once again we note the utterly and violently catastrophic nature of the failure.

Next, "democracy", a favorite term for the pretty slavery (or not so pretty in the eyes of those who are awake and thinking for themselves) that the social-liberals and other grossly ignorant, intellectually careless and lazy, or corrupt persons. As any minimally informed person is aware, actual democracy is nothing better than mob rule. It is, in effect, the utter chaos of the strong subjugating the weak to their superior material will of the "majority". Need I go through the more formal steps of demonstrating how violently this mode of social order dispenses with any notion of human rights? We are at three for three. Social liberalism's creds are already destroyed, but let us put another nail in its coffin just for kicks.

"Free trade", vis-a-vis free markets. Free trade, as currently constituted in law and in practice, is a failed policy the details of which could occupy volumes, so we will skip that here. The name and the reality are at serious odds with one another, the "freedom" being very selectively salted in the favor of one class of persons and most often significantly biased against the rest, this all working in diametric opposition to the notion of free markets and of human rights.

As we can all see, social-liberalism is really a code word denoting a philosophy and practice of extremely large governmental institutions operating in a contextual environment where they despotically control the lives of those who tend to drive toward achievement and excellence in order to "provide" for those who do not. This is all at the same time the preservation of turf while buying the loyalty of the indolent. It is the very pinnacle of tyranny, for it cloaks itself in a mantle of false compassion and moral rectitude that ever so thinly veils the most unimaginably vicious hearts the world has ever known.

If you are indeed a social liberal, you therefore CANNOT be one of the classical variety.

Claro?

Wow. ^^^This.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I support treating people equally. I do not support making people equal. The latter is the heart of progressive policy.

Can you both elaborate on that for me and tell me what backs up the idea? A glance at two Wikipedia articles provides a contradictory account, and makes it seem like you're just attaching an idea that you don't like to a word that is often said by people whom you probably view as opponents.

The only thing that stands out to me as an "equalizer" policy is progressive taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Excerpt:

Relation to other political ideologies

Liberalism
The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the US in particular, the term progressive tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat; which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation needed]

The reason for this confusion in the US might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.[9][10]

Cultural Liberalism[clarification needed] is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing"[citation needed], in contrast to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).[citation needed]

American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electorial success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan,British Columbia, and since the recent federal election, in Quebec.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

 

[Revolution9]

You can either take what I'm saying at face value and ask me what I mean, or you can make assumptions and ignore and disregard me.

Point in case: Social liberalism is not a unified ideology composed of all ideas that anyone who claims to be a social liberal adheres to. I can be a social liberal without, for example, wanting to take money directly from wealthy people to give it to the poor through a debit-card food stamp program, or being for setting up a "minimum living wage" for work done.

Since you don't seem interested in actually discussing my views with me, I'm not going to bother with explaining them to you.

He kicked yer ass with size 16 cowboy boots. I note you haven't got the ass to back up the cheque yer posts write. Every time someone asks you to clarify you weasel around and spin it on them. You oughta consider a career as a democratic congressional reprehensative..

Rev9

 

[LimitedGovernment]

He kicked yer ass with size 16 cowboy boots. I note you haven't got the ass to back up the cheque yer posts write. Every time someone asks you to clarify you weasel around and spin it on them. You oughta consider a career as a democratic congressional reprehensative..

Rev9

Actually, almost no one has asked me for clarification. They've made assumptions and put words in my mouth. That's the problem.

The majority of people here appear happy to attack anyone who doesn't identify as "[their] kind of conservative". Of course, if you actually look at what I say, many of my positions are very fiscally and politically conservative compared to what the GOP and Dems are advocating.

In other words, it's a lot like I'm Ron Paul and some people here are the GOP.



Here's what happens when I get asked a question about my positions: I respond clearly and simply unless asked for details.

It's a tie between separation of church and state and equal civil rights. They're both about how we define "public vs private" issues.

To put it succinctly, I vote for policy stances that treat all people equally at the first level (consideration/access), and that prevent any interest group from using public funding for its personal/private (non-research-based/non-public) agenda.

That means I'm both for civil marriage equality and against government involvement in some of the ways that it manages marriage (e.g. marriage shouldn't be related to taxes, but the government should honor hospital visitation rights across state lines).

It also means that I'm for private prayer and statements of nonbelief (and for speaking freely in public forum events dedicated to open speech), but against putting "In God We Trust" or "There Is No God" on any public property (or stating either of those phrases in an official capacity).


Currency is a big issue for me, but unless those other two issues are satisfied, any other freedom or security is of much less value to me - and I believe that sound currency would be used to buy undue influence that does harm to others. That's why I tend to vote D/O nationally.

 

[Revolution9]

Actually, almost no one has asked me for clarification. They've made assumptions and put words in my mouth. That's the problem.

The majority of people here appear happy to attack anyone who doesn't identify as "[their] kind of conservative". Of course, if you actually look at what I say, many of my positions are very fiscally and politically conservative compared to what the GOP and Dems are advocating.

In other words, it's a lot like I'm Ron Paul and some people here are the GOP.



Here's what happens when I get asked a question about my positions: I respond clearly and simply unless asked for details.

I ain't conservative but I think yer blowin' bunch of hot air and weaseing and dissembling, prevaricating and backtracking, clueless, probably young and an idealist and not very realistic. I certainly don't like the way you club the English language into utter insensibility.

And this.."I respond clearly and simply unless asked for details". You expect to get anywhere with a broadbrush and a bucket of whitewash? That is the essence of the lost debate.

Rev9

 

[Hyperion]

At the federal level I can think of quite a few Republicans I'd passionately support. I can't think of one Democrat that's even worthy of consideration.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I ain't conservative but I think yer blowin' bunch of hot air and weaseing and dissembling, prevaricating and backtracking, clueless, probably young and an idealist and not very realistic. I certainly don't like the way you club the English language into utter insensibility.

And this.."I respond clearly and simply unless asked for details". You expect to get anywhere with a broadbrush and a bucket of whitewash? That is the essence of the lost debate.

Rev9

How about you post some quotes to back up your view, instead of throwing out general attacks?

You know, something that clearly contradicts posts like this one

If we're going to look at [...]

or this one

She didn't make it the focus [...]

or this one

Civil marriage (governmental license) is a different thing [...]

or this one

I don't have a full theory of government, but [...]

or, you know, any other clear and correct post that I've made.

 

[Sam I am]

Two things: Rights and Research

Republicans are horrible with respect to both.


The Rachel Maddow Show outlines a little bit of just how adamant the GOP is on attacking vulnerable targets (minorities including gays, women, and low-income families) behind the scenes - and then refusing to talk about it

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47381091

Half of it seems to be that the GOP members refuse to look at the research data on crucial subjects (e.g. teen pregnancy, sex ed, bullying, adoption)

The other half seems to be a personal distaste for people who are unlike them



The only way that a movement for limited government will succeed in the long run is by purposely distancing themselves from these GOP policies and members, and identifying themselves by a different name. There needs to be a "party within the party" - and it obviously shouldn't go by "the TEA Party". The name needs to clearly define what its members stand for - not just against. "Liberty" is too vague and misunderstood by the casual voter.

"The EARNEST Party - Equality and Accountability in Republicans' New Endeavors for Security and Trade" ?

Here's a better idea, Since we want a Liberty-minded party, we should name it after that.

how about the Libertarian party novel idea eh?

 

[Revolution9]

How about you post some quotes to back up your view, instead of throwing out general attacks?

You know, something that clearly contradicts posts like this one



or this one



or this one



or this one



or, you know, any other clear and correct post that I've made.

Howzabout they read the whole thread. You never stopped from post one.

Rev9

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Here's a better idea, Since we want a Liberty-minded party, we should name it after that.

how about the Libertarian party novel idea eh?

The thread is about movements within the two established parties, so LP doesn't really apply. Moreover, there are more limited government views than just the libertarian camp.

Howzabout they read the whole thread. You never stopped from post one.

Rev9

So you're just being non-cooperative. Got it.

 

[Sam I am]

Limited Government, I fear you have been misled...

Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (now deceased), is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Explicit Democrat support was given to the causes of the Jim Crow laws... The era of Jim Crow laws was governed by southern Democrats like Alabama governor George Wallace and Mississippi senator Jim Eastland.

It was DEMOCRATS that institutionalized slavery.
It was DEMOCRATS who commissioned medical professionals to proclaim that "excessive amounts of carbon in the bodies of Negroes" was the reason for their skin color and inferiority. (why do they still have a problem with the benign element Carbon)
It was DEMOCRATS that did not like the 1860 election of abolitionist REPUBLICAN Lincoln.
It was DEMOCRATS that seceded from the Union before he was even sworn in.
.
It was DEMOCRATS that formed their own army, the KKK. REPUBLICANS were hanged by the hundreds right alongside the Negroes, usually in the same tree. It was DEMOCRATS that set up Jim Crow laws in the South to further subjugate the Negroes.

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that so admired the Progressive movement's Margret Sanger's eugenics research (number of black babies aborted far exceeds those of other demographics)

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that re-segregated the military after it had been fully integrated by the Republicans in the 1870s.

A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans.

It was DEMOCRATS that blocked three attempts during the Eisenhower Administration for comprehensive civil-rights

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

sidebar: "A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party."

The democratic party of 50 years ago is not the democratic party of today, in-fact the democrats use to be the conservative party, and the republicans were the liberal party.

 

[pcosmar]

The democratic party of 50 years ago is not the democratic party of today, in-fact the democrats use to be the conservative party, and the republicans were the liberal party.

Which demonstrates just how irrelevant those terms are.

 

[Cowlesy]

Can you both elaborate on that for me and tell me what backs up the idea?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQa8XQG8wU

Maybe a audio/visual is best.

 

[osan]

I support treating people equally. I do not support making people equal. The latter is the heart of progressive policy.

This is a great and profound distinction you draw. I suspect, however, it may be too subtle for many.

 

[hillertexas]

The democratic party of 50 years ago is not the democratic party of today, in-fact the democrats use to be the conservative party, and the republicans were the liberal party.

not my words but relevant ...

"Fact: The parties never "switched."

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated mainly by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. At the same time, they started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

 

[LimitedGovernment]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQa8XQG8wU

Maybe a audio/visual is best.

That's a very well-produced video clip, but it doesn't answer the heart of my question very well.

What my question is getting at is what you think the self-identified progressives actually want (policy wise) and what policies they have enacted that prove your view of their goals.

I do not believe that many progressives actually want everyone's abilities and identities to be restricted to the same level - which is what the clip you linked to interprets Joe Biden (who, I grant you, has said that he views himself as a progressive) as saying.

Many people point to Affirmative Action as a policy framework that makes people "equalized" in the clip's sense, but few actually seem to know what affirmative action policies are. For example, many who are against AA ever articulate to me an understanding of what the legal term "adverse impact" means or how organizations can submit appeals with regard to EEOC policy decisions.

AA isn't about equalizing wages or skills or anything else that opponents seem to think it is. It's (broadly) about putting a check on hiring decisions by looking at the statistical hiring trends of companies and violations of their hiring policies in discrimination against minorities.


So, again, can you name some specific policy decisions that progressives have passed in order to equalize outcomes (e.g. wages) or abilities, rather than that provide for equal access to opportunities?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

OH bullshit, the Democratic Party is not what you describe at all. How do you explain the NDAA or this? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323191

Just thought I'd post a few more recent things to back up what I said.

Though I already posted stuff about state legislatures, here's another one - this time about MN's anti-gay marriage bill (Reps for, Dems against): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlrbiRywDYQ&feature=relmfu

And TN - a ban on the word "gay" in TN schools (Reps for, Dems against): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=-UQCY-Vax8s

And here's the roll call for the Smith-Amash amendment to the NDAA (Dems for, Reps against): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml


Again, I'm not advocating for the Democratic Party. I'm simply pointing to why the Democrats are widely perceived to be "pro-rights, pro-research", whereas Republicans are not. A fact that highlights the need for limited government candidates to distinguish themselves from the general GOP (and the Democratic Party, for members of groups like the Democratic Freedom Caucus http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/ ).


Edit:

I also can't seem to find any news about how the Democrat in Texas brokered the deal with the TSA. Did no other Democrats or Republicans have a say in the matter?