User:Woozle/Why Republicans Suck/intro

A Brief Word to Republicans

If you are a Republican, you may not care what I think since I'm not a Republican -- indeed, I oppose most or all of what the GOP has come to stand for -- and therefore not to be trusted or taken seriously (which would only prove one of my points: Republicans think they're right by definition, a concept which is explored in [chapter name here].). If that's true, you can stop reading here, because I'm not going to be saying much of anything nice about your Party as it now stands.

If, however, you're curious as to why so many people find your party and the people who vote for it to be despicable human beings, read on.

A litany of badness

Whatever it once was, the US Republican Party has become truly awful -- that is, far more so than the average political party. This is a fact that is now pretty much obvious to anyone who isn't a Republican; there has been extensive debate, and the debate is now over. Today's Republicans are, as a group and as individuals, absolutely terrible at running a government of any size.

If you take any arbitrary piece of terrible legislation that has come out in the past ten to twenty years, it was probably sponsored by a Republican and backed by Republicans. If a Republican and a Democrat disagree over something important, it's almost always the Republican who is not just wrong, but absolutely and utterly dead wrong.

[needs to be more here]

Republicans have:

• decimated public education:
  • slashed budgets for public education at all levels
  • engaged in a nationwide campaign to insert superstition and anti-scientific dogma into school curricula
  • required stickers on textbooks stating that essential cornerstones of modern understanding are "just a theory"
  • removed any elements of critical thinking from school curricula.
• ruined municipal governments by reducing taxes on the wealthiest
  • ...thus creating another pseudo threat to "save" us from by cutting vital services, which in turn destroys the local economy, further reducing government revenues until the budget is in absolute crisis -- providing an excuse for even more draconian "austerity" measures

It is by this irresponsible and underhanded ethos -- victory at any cost, we're always right, suppress any information that shows we might be wrong -- that Republicanism has not only thrived but remade much of American culture in its own image: violent, hateful, narrow-minded, dishonest, ignorant, superstitious, paranoid, blindly loyal to the undeserving and trusting of the untrustworthy.

Put more simply: Republican ideology has made us gullible and stupid.

Or, rather, it has made you stupid. Yes, you out there -- railing about how terrible Donald Trump is while preparing to vote for Ted Cruz. Cruz's policies are, on the whole, no better than those proposed by Trump; the only difference is that Cruz is constrained by the needs of the Party establishment, and will backtrack when he accidentally carries Party beliefs to their logical conclusions in public. Trump is that logical conclusion; he is everything the Party wants to say but is afraid to; he is everything that right-wing voters have come to believe because Republicans have led them to believe it. (Listen to Cruz's dad sometime if you want to understand better where Cruz is really coming from.)

What this really comes down to, though, is that the Republican base represents people who don't care enough about the facts to bother checking them, and probably don't have a clue about how to do so. They'll blindly go along with whatever false beliefs their trusted leaders present to them -- and savagely defend those beliefs against any evidence they encounter, no matter how compelling.

Scientific method: collect evidence, make guesses, and test those guesses against reality to see if they hold up Republican method: believe what you're told, look for evidence to prop it up

This is not a noble thing, but they seem to think it is. The Republican idea of "how we decide which things are true and which things are false" is basically 100% inverted from the scientific method: instead of collecting evidence, making guesses, and testing those guesses against reality to see if they hold up, Republicans take the truth they are handed and look for evidence to prop it up -- and the only reason they bother looking for evidence is with the hope of convincing us heathens that there is something to their beliefs; they'd be just as happy closing their eyes and ears and just Believing.

This is an absolutely terrible way to attempt to understand the universe, much less run a government. It's the opposite of what works.

Given the numerous Republican attempts to keep others from voting, then, I think it's only fair to break with liberal policy on this one issue and say the following:

If you can't be bothered to check the facts your leaders are giving you -- to research the issues you're voting on, to understand what the other side is arguing and why -- then ask an informed Democrat or independent to explain them to you, or to offer suggestions on how to vote. If you're the sort of person who prefers to let others make the big decisions, then try trusting your informed neighbor instead of the megacorporate news or your megachurch's pastor.

Dysconservatism

The rot goes deeper than mere naked self-interest. Modern Republicanism has betrayed nearly everything that is implied by the label "conservative".

Let's look at that word for a minute. When it's not referring specifically to a political party or religious entity, "conservative" is understood to mean:

• The first three definitions from dictionary.com:
  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
  2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
  3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a conservative suit
• The two lowercase brief definitions from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com):
  1. believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism
  2. not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

Merriam-Webster's "full definition" punts a bit and defines it as "of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism". It defines "conservatism" first as "not liking or accepting changes or new ideas" and "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change", but then specifies this as:

specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

This is more or less in line with the modern political philosophy which calls itself "conservatism".

Definitions from the 1969 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (hardback edition, edited by William Morris), however, say nothing about taxes, government regulation, business, defense, or financial responsibility. Omitting only the capital-C definitions, the full text is:

• con-ser-va-tism n. 1. The disposition in politics or culture to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change or innovation. 2. The principles and practices of persons or groups so disposed. [...]
• con-ser-va-tive adj. 1. Tending to favor the preservation of the existing order and to regard proposals for change with distrust. [...] 4. Moderate or prudent; cautious; a conservative estimate. 5. Traditional in manner or style; not showy; a conservative suit. [...]

So, in summary:

1. preservation of the existing order
2. opposing change or innovation
3. moderate or prudent; cautious
4. traditional

On none of these points does the modern political philosophy calling itself "conservatism" succeed.

It has worked to erode long-existing establishments essential to the preservation of the existing order. It has supported change -- especially destructive change -- in the name of "progress" and "profit". It has been profligate in its pursuit of war and in its disregard for prudent measures necessary to maintain a functional economy. It has violated the American traditions of democracy, fairness, tolerance, diversity, justice, and the rule of law.

In short, it is absolutely the opposite of everything a naive reader might assume "conservatism" to mean; at best, it has become completely dysfunctional at serving the interests of those who prefer a conservative approach to government; at worst, it does them a complete disservice.

For those reasons, I will be referring to the political philosophy of today's Republican Party -- a philosophy which brands itself as everything from libertarian to puritannical, but maintains no principles except that of self-promotion -- as "dysconservatism".