for The Republican Party5/29/2005 c1 
4Falsetto
Reaganomics or supply-side economics, the reduction of taxes, especially for the wealthy and the large corporations helped the American economy? It was one of the causes of the recession of 1982! Unemployment reached 11 percent! Deregulation and Supply-side economics did not pull America out of a recession. Instead deregulation caused the government to relax enforcement of people's civil rights and the protection of the environment.
The national debt rose from $907 billion to $3.5 trillion during this time! And what did this debt cause? It caused cuts in welfare programs for the poor Americans.
Some people in the Republican Party have done great things in the past, such as Abraham Lincoln with keeping America together, the Radical Republicans with Reconstruction and Theodore Roosevelt with conservation and the Pure Food and Drug Act... which truly does benefit society today. But the Republican Party now is definately not the same Republican party that existed a hundred or so years ago.
4FalsettoReaganomics or supply-side economics, the reduction of taxes, especially for the wealthy and the large corporations helped the American economy? It was one of the causes of the recession of 1982! Unemployment reached 11 percent! Deregulation and Supply-side economics did not pull America out of a recession. Instead deregulation caused the government to relax enforcement of people's civil rights and the protection of the environment.
The national debt rose from $907 billion to $3.5 trillion during this time! And what did this debt cause? It caused cuts in welfare programs for the poor Americans.
Some people in the Republican Party have done great things in the past, such as Abraham Lincoln with keeping America together, the Radical Republicans with Reconstruction and Theodore Roosevelt with conservation and the Pure Food and Drug Act... which truly does benefit society today. But the Republican Party now is definately not the same Republican party that existed a hundred or so years ago.
11/27/2004 c1 Matryoshka
Hello, another interesting essay!I quite agree with you that the Republican party certainly has some good points. Lincoln is a great example of a Republican to be revered.But in recent years, the view of Republicans has changed. Now, the Republican party seems to stand more for Conservatives who resist change (these are just the stereotypes-I don't necessarily agree with them); for people who help only the wealthy; etc. I don't want to sound too much like the stereotypical "liberal", but you have to agree that some of those stereotypes are true. Didn't the tax cuts President Bush proposed and passed, in fact, benefit mostly the wealthier percent of the population. And isn't our current economical depression in part attributed to these tax cuts? Right now, we are deeply in debt (I apologize-I'm not quite sure of the numbers; it's somewhere in the trillions).The whole gay rights/abortion issues are also seen as a refusal of the Republican Party to accept any "new" things or ideas; sticking to old ideas that don't apply to everyone anymore. I'm sorry for ranting so much, but I consider your essay really interesting and a great thing to discuss. If you have any questions or replies, please e-mail me.
Hello, another interesting essay!I quite agree with you that the Republican party certainly has some good points. Lincoln is a great example of a Republican to be revered.But in recent years, the view of Republicans has changed. Now, the Republican party seems to stand more for Conservatives who resist change (these are just the stereotypes-I don't necessarily agree with them); for people who help only the wealthy; etc. I don't want to sound too much like the stereotypical "liberal", but you have to agree that some of those stereotypes are true. Didn't the tax cuts President Bush proposed and passed, in fact, benefit mostly the wealthier percent of the population. And isn't our current economical depression in part attributed to these tax cuts? Right now, we are deeply in debt (I apologize-I'm not quite sure of the numbers; it's somewhere in the trillions).The whole gay rights/abortion issues are also seen as a refusal of the Republican Party to accept any "new" things or ideas; sticking to old ideas that don't apply to everyone anymore. I'm sorry for ranting so much, but I consider your essay really interesting and a great thing to discuss. If you have any questions or replies, please e-mail me.
11/8/2004 c1 18Jay Soto
Thank you, I coudn't have said it any better than this...with a real historical perspective on the "me" majority.
18Jay SotoThank you, I coudn't have said it any better than this...with a real historical perspective on the "me" majority.
7/5/2004 c2 7C Shot
Cal, Cal, Cal.. nice essay like always. Just wished I wouldve read it sooner.
Myself, Ive been turning into a very strict constitutionalist. So naturally I agree with this essay.
-Curtis
7C ShotCal, Cal, Cal.. nice essay like always. Just wished I wouldve read it sooner.
Myself, Ive been turning into a very strict constitutionalist. So naturally I agree with this essay.
-Curtis
6/30/2004 c2 38txredhedxt
awesome...im so envious...you write so well on such a great topic, something i could only dream of doing. First, to alfred von schleiffen, republicans are not pushing for less rights for minorities, but are trying to not have minorities to begin with. The whole concept behind it is that when you give certain people more rights, say because they're a black gay female, perhaps by saying that since they're black, they should get a job before a white person with the same qualifications in order to try to balance the scales from before blacks were even allowed to vote, and then that they should get the right to marry another female bacause they're gay, and that they should get higher pay because they're female, yet again to balance things out, that promotes discrimination, doesn't it? if we just had everybody getting everything equally nomatter what color or sex they were born, or what sexual orientation they have aquired (another subject...well, just don't get me started, huh?)...then everyone would truely be equal, though still individuals due to their freedoms of speech and religion...or at least, thats my take on the subject...and then regarding his chapter 2 review, it's not like passing a law that says you can drink when you're 21 in Texas and it's 'oppressing' people because the federal law says you can drink no matter how old you are...they aren't forcing you to drink, and they're not forcing you not to...ya know...this isn't about a couple beers, this is about killing someone...yes, murder because it is growing and something that is growing is living, whether it be a plant not yet sprouting from the soil, or a baby not yet outside the womb...if you go and put 'murder' instead of 'drinking,' you'd see how rediculous it is to say "well, the state government is oppressing people because they wont let them murder other people but the federal government isn't because they arn't forcing you to kill anyone, and they aren't forcing you not to..."...and adoption is just as good as abortion without the whole killing the little baby theme goin on...and keep in mind that those on welfare in most, not all, cases, are just too lazy to get off their butts and get a job...i know some of them...it's kinda like ya earn what you work for or what you can swindle, and the more taxes that go to welfare, the poorer the rich get and since the people who get the welfare go out and get drunk with their welfare check, they stay the same, broke. whats the point, really?...i mean, if bill gates was smart enough to do his thing and make all that money, who are you to tell him he can't have it? I'm poor too, but I understand if the rich are smart, or even lucky enough to get their millions, then y not let em keep it?...most of em give bunches of it to charities anyway, and that actually helps us. and most of the rich pay their taxes (disregarding afew such as those at enron who were just stupid, tho I am sorry they couldnt keep it enron field instead of dorkey minute maid park...i mean...come on...the big E was so much better than the big orange...lol...a lil off topic, but...ya know), most of the poor don't ...that's kina what the IRS is for...and thats all i care to say to alfred on that matter, but, the essay was awesome and you have alot of talent and, obviously, knowledge...so I'll leeve it at that and go to bed cuz its 5 am here...hmm...i tend to let these political things get in the way of my sleep...lol...such is life i spose...newayz...please review one of my poems or sumthin(specially my to a soldier one...i wrote it for my brother)if ya are free...l8rz
*~BrIt~*
38txredhedxtawesome...im so envious...you write so well on such a great topic, something i could only dream of doing. First, to alfred von schleiffen, republicans are not pushing for less rights for minorities, but are trying to not have minorities to begin with. The whole concept behind it is that when you give certain people more rights, say because they're a black gay female, perhaps by saying that since they're black, they should get a job before a white person with the same qualifications in order to try to balance the scales from before blacks were even allowed to vote, and then that they should get the right to marry another female bacause they're gay, and that they should get higher pay because they're female, yet again to balance things out, that promotes discrimination, doesn't it? if we just had everybody getting everything equally nomatter what color or sex they were born, or what sexual orientation they have aquired (another subject...well, just don't get me started, huh?)...then everyone would truely be equal, though still individuals due to their freedoms of speech and religion...or at least, thats my take on the subject...and then regarding his chapter 2 review, it's not like passing a law that says you can drink when you're 21 in Texas and it's 'oppressing' people because the federal law says you can drink no matter how old you are...they aren't forcing you to drink, and they're not forcing you not to...ya know...this isn't about a couple beers, this is about killing someone...yes, murder because it is growing and something that is growing is living, whether it be a plant not yet sprouting from the soil, or a baby not yet outside the womb...if you go and put 'murder' instead of 'drinking,' you'd see how rediculous it is to say "well, the state government is oppressing people because they wont let them murder other people but the federal government isn't because they arn't forcing you to kill anyone, and they aren't forcing you not to..."...and adoption is just as good as abortion without the whole killing the little baby theme goin on...and keep in mind that those on welfare in most, not all, cases, are just too lazy to get off their butts and get a job...i know some of them...it's kinda like ya earn what you work for or what you can swindle, and the more taxes that go to welfare, the poorer the rich get and since the people who get the welfare go out and get drunk with their welfare check, they stay the same, broke. whats the point, really?...i mean, if bill gates was smart enough to do his thing and make all that money, who are you to tell him he can't have it? I'm poor too, but I understand if the rich are smart, or even lucky enough to get their millions, then y not let em keep it?...most of em give bunches of it to charities anyway, and that actually helps us. and most of the rich pay their taxes (disregarding afew such as those at enron who were just stupid, tho I am sorry they couldnt keep it enron field instead of dorkey minute maid park...i mean...come on...the big E was so much better than the big orange...lol...a lil off topic, but...ya know), most of the poor don't ...that's kina what the IRS is for...and thats all i care to say to alfred on that matter, but, the essay was awesome and you have alot of talent and, obviously, knowledge...so I'll leeve it at that and go to bed cuz its 5 am here...hmm...i tend to let these political things get in the way of my sleep...lol...such is life i spose...newayz...please review one of my poems or sumthin(specially my to a soldier one...i wrote it for my brother)if ya are free...l8rz
*~BrIt~*
6/4/2004 c2 2Captain Campion
I realize that the essay is over a year old, so perhaps the timing of this review is unfair in that it takes into account another year worth of policy.
First, let me say right up front that I am very conservative and consider myself an "originalist". I am also a Republican.
The "republicans stand for small government" assertion in your essay, unfortunately, does not hold true anymore.
The Republican party-my party-has two major problems.
1. They don't know how to win.
2. They have a horrible PR machine.
First off, the modern Republican party tends to shoot itself in the foot when it gains victories. Consider the 1994 Congressional elections. Here was a historic chance to push a conservative agenda but the party leadership dropped the ball.
Second, the Republican party always finds itself one step behind the Democratic party's PR machine. Republicans always seem on the defensive.
As for Federalism, this is an interesting question. I believe in the original intent that the U.S. would be a loose confederation of states where local preferences would be the primary influence in shaping laws, etc.
The Federal government existed to protect the fundamental freedoms granted to all men and to safe guard the nation as a whole (national defense).
My how the times have changed. This started with congress being granted the authority to inflict income taxes.
Of course FDR then blackmailed the Supreme Court in getting through his "New Deal" which was a lot more than relief from the Great Depression.
Then the tone was set and it's been bigger, more comprehensive govnerment plans in the decades since.
Okay, my "review" is getting long so I'll bow out. But I'll end with this note-the Republican party must get back in touch with its roots and the policy positions that differentiate it from its competition.
2Captain CampionI realize that the essay is over a year old, so perhaps the timing of this review is unfair in that it takes into account another year worth of policy.
First, let me say right up front that I am very conservative and consider myself an "originalist". I am also a Republican.
The "republicans stand for small government" assertion in your essay, unfortunately, does not hold true anymore.
The Republican party-my party-has two major problems.
1. They don't know how to win.
2. They have a horrible PR machine.
First off, the modern Republican party tends to shoot itself in the foot when it gains victories. Consider the 1994 Congressional elections. Here was a historic chance to push a conservative agenda but the party leadership dropped the ball.
Second, the Republican party always finds itself one step behind the Democratic party's PR machine. Republicans always seem on the defensive.
As for Federalism, this is an interesting question. I believe in the original intent that the U.S. would be a loose confederation of states where local preferences would be the primary influence in shaping laws, etc.
The Federal government existed to protect the fundamental freedoms granted to all men and to safe guard the nation as a whole (national defense).
My how the times have changed. This started with congress being granted the authority to inflict income taxes.
Of course FDR then blackmailed the Supreme Court in getting through his "New Deal" which was a lot more than relief from the Great Depression.
Then the tone was set and it's been bigger, more comprehensive govnerment plans in the decades since.
Okay, my "review" is getting long so I'll bow out. But I'll end with this note-the Republican party must get back in touch with its roots and the policy positions that differentiate it from its competition.
5/21/2004 c2 Alfred von Schlieffen
I laughed when you you said the ordinary citizen has more control over his life in state control rather than federal control. ::cough:: WRONG! ::cough:: For one, issues like Abortion have no affect on someone's rights. If abortion is legalized in one state, you're oppressing the state's citizens, and they'd have to drive over to the next state in order to get an abortion because a man raped Mrs. Tasker. This is called opression, the very thing you've been condeming about the federal goverment. If it was a federal law that people can get abortions, this is opressing people how? Oh yeah. . . it isn't. No one's forced to get an abortion, and no one's forced not to get an abortion.
All in all, your theory that state government is superior to federal government classifies you as a Confederate. It's no question at all that were you at the age of 18, in Alabama, 1861, you would have instantly signed up to fight them Yankees in New York. . . those Republicans in New York.
What I find particularly stupid about your argument is your attempt to justify not giving welfare to the poor. As a country, as a state-it makes no difference. We still have a duty to help those in need. Individualism is wrong in a sense that not everyone gets an opportunity to live the American Dream, the very thing that you've been trying to convince us the Republican Party stands for. First you're trying to justify something, the next moment you're trying to de-justify it. Your essay makes very little sense in that perspective.
Lastly, on a minor note, Senator McCain, a Republican (Conservative debating opponets deny that he is a democrat; he's simply a little maverick on some of the issues)has been strongly condeming the tax cuts that have been placed on America during a *WAR.* In your essay, you had the gaul to say that tax cuts prevented money from going to waste. You simply rant about how useless federal government is, and that all federal people are evil because of their bias and nothing but bureaucrats. You're basically saying that people working for the federal government shouldn't have individual rights, the exact thing you've been arguing FOR. Again, you contradict yourself in endless hypocrisy.
I laughed when you you said the ordinary citizen has more control over his life in state control rather than federal control. ::cough:: WRONG! ::cough:: For one, issues like Abortion have no affect on someone's rights. If abortion is legalized in one state, you're oppressing the state's citizens, and they'd have to drive over to the next state in order to get an abortion because a man raped Mrs. Tasker. This is called opression, the very thing you've been condeming about the federal goverment. If it was a federal law that people can get abortions, this is opressing people how? Oh yeah. . . it isn't. No one's forced to get an abortion, and no one's forced not to get an abortion.
All in all, your theory that state government is superior to federal government classifies you as a Confederate. It's no question at all that were you at the age of 18, in Alabama, 1861, you would have instantly signed up to fight them Yankees in New York. . . those Republicans in New York.
What I find particularly stupid about your argument is your attempt to justify not giving welfare to the poor. As a country, as a state-it makes no difference. We still have a duty to help those in need. Individualism is wrong in a sense that not everyone gets an opportunity to live the American Dream, the very thing that you've been trying to convince us the Republican Party stands for. First you're trying to justify something, the next moment you're trying to de-justify it. Your essay makes very little sense in that perspective.
Lastly, on a minor note, Senator McCain, a Republican (Conservative debating opponets deny that he is a democrat; he's simply a little maverick on some of the issues)has been strongly condeming the tax cuts that have been placed on America during a *WAR.* In your essay, you had the gaul to say that tax cuts prevented money from going to waste. You simply rant about how useless federal government is, and that all federal people are evil because of their bias and nothing but bureaucrats. You're basically saying that people working for the federal government shouldn't have individual rights, the exact thing you've been arguing FOR. Again, you contradict yourself in endless hypocrisy.
5/21/2004 c1 Alfred von Schlieffen
What's so ironic about the Republican party is that the states it holds majority in are in the *South,* the very place our country's finest Republican marched armies into and fought against. When you say the Republicans used to be liberal, and about change, but are no conservative, you make it sound as if they are trying to conserve what they got when they were liberal. Although the comment was subtle, it was not immaculate, and neither was the point it made true. Right now, Republicans are pushing for less rights for minorities, which was precisely the opposite of what they wanted in the civil war. They hardly stand for the working man anymore either. Most buisness *owners,* not employees, are conservative because Republicans support big corporations contrary to the average and poor man. They may have freed the slaves, sure, but it was the Republicans who fought the Seperate but Equal constroversy in 1954, not the Democrats. It's a completely backward twist in less than 100 years-n other words: hypocrisy.
What's so ironic about the Republican party is that the states it holds majority in are in the *South,* the very place our country's finest Republican marched armies into and fought against. When you say the Republicans used to be liberal, and about change, but are no conservative, you make it sound as if they are trying to conserve what they got when they were liberal. Although the comment was subtle, it was not immaculate, and neither was the point it made true. Right now, Republicans are pushing for less rights for minorities, which was precisely the opposite of what they wanted in the civil war. They hardly stand for the working man anymore either. Most buisness *owners,* not employees, are conservative because Republicans support big corporations contrary to the average and poor man. They may have freed the slaves, sure, but it was the Republicans who fought the Seperate but Equal constroversy in 1954, not the Democrats. It's a completely backward twist in less than 100 years-n other words: hypocrisy.
11/20/2003 c2 James Jago
I think it likely that many politicians, when faced with a conflict of interest between State and Federal, will side according to the people whose ideas they most agree with rather than for a particular principle.
And State Governments don't have red tape and pointless beauracracy as well? Yeah, right.
I think it likely that many politicians, when faced with a conflict of interest between State and Federal, will side according to the people whose ideas they most agree with rather than for a particular principle.
And State Governments don't have red tape and pointless beauracracy as well? Yeah, right.
9/30/2003 c1 26wordpainter241
Like I could read all your mis-information about the Republicans but the fact remains that Bush is an idiot. I'm saying the Democrats are better or anything, personally I reckon the whole system sucks, but Bush, man, he didn't even win the election. How could you favour Republicans after what they did in 20?
26wordpainter241Like I could read all your mis-information about the Republicans but the fact remains that Bush is an idiot. I'm saying the Democrats are better or anything, personally I reckon the whole system sucks, but Bush, man, he didn't even win the election. How could you favour Republicans after what they did in 20?
9/13/2003 c1 1Vivian Bennett
You have expressed beautifully what I would have struggled to explain.
Well done!
1Vivian BennettYou have expressed beautifully what I would have struggled to explain.
Well done!
7/20/2003 c2 Mbwun
Good essay, you are well-educated in the topic you are writing about (the Republican Party), and knowledge and research are the cornerstones of a good essay.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
Good essay, you are well-educated in the topic you are writing about (the Republican Party), and knowledge and research are the cornerstones of a good essay.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
7/13/2003 c1 28Arayuldawen
I totally agree with you. Nice job. Im a proud Republican. But, most of my friends are Democratic, and outnumber me, and are always putting down Republicans. The thing is, I don't really know much about past Republicans, and the good things that they have done. My friends seem to know every horrible thing, though, that Republicans have done.
28ArayuldawenI totally agree with you. Nice job. Im a proud Republican. But, most of my friends are Democratic, and outnumber me, and are always putting down Republicans. The thing is, I don't really know much about past Republicans, and the good things that they have done. My friends seem to know every horrible thing, though, that Republicans have done.
7/13/2003 c1 PhiloNysh
Interesting essay, but must disagree.
The Republicans have not always stood up for the principles of Democracy. In the 1920s, they attacked a number of communist groups. Democracy is the belief of representation for all believer, whether threatening 'democracy' or not.
Also African Americans were not (technically)given the vote until after the Civil Rights movement, often they would hvae to pay to vote. This is NOT democratic.
The Republican Party is no longer liberal, but now a conservative party.
Thats all.
Interesting essay, but must disagree.
The Republicans have not always stood up for the principles of Democracy. In the 1920s, they attacked a number of communist groups. Democracy is the belief of representation for all believer, whether threatening 'democracy' or not.
Also African Americans were not (technically)given the vote until after the Civil Rights movement, often they would hvae to pay to vote. This is NOT democratic.
The Republican Party is no longer liberal, but now a conservative party.
Thats all.
7/12/2003 c1 7CommandoCody
Nicely formed essay, but a few things were off.
For starters, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves universally. It was a tactic that Lincoln employed more for political show than for social change. The proclamation only freed those slaves in the states that were rebelling. Several border states that allowed slavery but had sided with the Union during the war were unaffected. The universal end of slavery in the U.S. and the legal basis for the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s didn't come until the Reconstruction Amendments were passed, all of which, I believe, were passed after Lincoln’s assassination. So, while Lincoln himself did not free the slaves, it was he that opened the door for it to be done, and so he does have good reason to be lauded.
As for the Republican Party itself I would have to say that I side with their stated morals. Notice I say stated morals, and not the ones that they sometimes act upon. Like any party to be found in Washington, Democrat or otherwise, their ranks are composed primarily of politicians instead of competent individuals, and so they look upon their own stated morals as guidelines rather than binding rules.
You might ask yourself: “If all political parties are filled with conniving politicians, who are you to trust?” The best answer to this is “those whose motivations are the clearest.” Business and a general fear of government encroachment motivate Republicans; so you know exactly where they stand. I don’t believe that any of the major or minor political parties should be spared the wrath of constant inquiry, but I believe that Republicans are disproportionately and often unjustifiably demonized so that others may push forward with racist and tyrannical agendas. It’s not a fair or balanced world we live in, but it could stand to be better than it currently is.
7CommandoCodyNicely formed essay, but a few things were off.
For starters, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves universally. It was a tactic that Lincoln employed more for political show than for social change. The proclamation only freed those slaves in the states that were rebelling. Several border states that allowed slavery but had sided with the Union during the war were unaffected. The universal end of slavery in the U.S. and the legal basis for the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s didn't come until the Reconstruction Amendments were passed, all of which, I believe, were passed after Lincoln’s assassination. So, while Lincoln himself did not free the slaves, it was he that opened the door for it to be done, and so he does have good reason to be lauded.
As for the Republican Party itself I would have to say that I side with their stated morals. Notice I say stated morals, and not the ones that they sometimes act upon. Like any party to be found in Washington, Democrat or otherwise, their ranks are composed primarily of politicians instead of competent individuals, and so they look upon their own stated morals as guidelines rather than binding rules.
You might ask yourself: “If all political parties are filled with conniving politicians, who are you to trust?” The best answer to this is “those whose motivations are the clearest.” Business and a general fear of government encroachment motivate Republicans; so you know exactly where they stand. I don’t believe that any of the major or minor political parties should be spared the wrath of constant inquiry, but I believe that Republicans are disproportionately and often unjustifiably demonized so that others may push forward with racist and tyrannical agendas. It’s not a fair or balanced world we live in, but it could stand to be better than it currently is.