Cataloging Republicans——Category 1: ‘Family Values’ Republicans
Republicans, like Democrats come in various ilk. People are Republicans or Democrats for differing reasons. I reckon most people, once a Republican or Democrat, tend to stay that way all their lives—probably not to the same extent as to their religion, which often like their politics, they inherit. My guess is that it is easier to stay put with one’s inherited religion than inherited politics. Neither religion or politics is science, so whatever I, or anyone else, says on theses topics is opinion. Of course not all opinions are equal. The best opinions are achieved via the best logic, the best knowledge of the matter, the best exposure to relevant facts, and so on. Opinions, by their very nature, are wrapped in feelings. One of the weaknesses of democracy is that feelings can often have a poor basis, and yet have strong power at the ballot box.
Category 1 Republicans are a ‘Gut Feeling’ crowd. This crowd is best described by a recent conversation, if I can use the term loosely, with a gentleman who is a staunch Republican. He commented that he “hated’ Obama. So I asked “which policies of Obama do you oppose and why?”. Seemed a fair enough question. “ I just hate everything about him, especially how he purses his lips so much when he speaks.” Ok, that’s a logical reason to “hate’ someone. I guess. Well, at least to this person. I stayed silent to see if anything else followed. “This country is going down the tube because of all the entitlements.” “You don’t think the less fortunate are entitled to some government help?” “No, let them earn their status in society like I did.” “I don’t understand, do you really believe you earned what you have accomplished in life?” “Yes I did, I worked hard to get where I am, I earned my success, I didn’t get any entitlements.
So I tried to pursue his point. “ Did you earn your genetic make-up? Did you earn your parents? Did you earn the country into which you were born? Did you earn your physical status or talents? Did you earn the neighborhood of your formative years? Did you earn the quality of school you went to? Did you earn the good health care you got? Did you earn being raised in a safe neighborhood?
Did you earn a good family environment? It just seems maybe you really didn’t earn a lot of the most important things that matter for you to have succeeded in life.”
I could see the frustration and anger emerging and knew this would be a short ‘discussion’. “Well, there are lots of people born in poor situations in life who make something of themselves”. “But don’t you think a far greater percentage of them would end up making something of themselves if they had all the unearned advantages (entitlements) that you had? I mean something here doesn’t seem too fair. Why should you get all these unearned gift-like entitlements and others can’t have these unearned entitlements? “Look, I don’t want to argue politics, it’s a waste of time. Let’s change the subject. And then we let all these people into our country who are dragging us down. America used to be a great country.” “You make a series of broad statements and then say you don’t want to discuss them.” “I am just giving you my feelings on a couple of things, now let’s talk about something else. I just can’t stand what is happening to our country.”
And, of course, there really is no point in further discussion because the person has little to offer but feelings. Climate change is a good example. To be fair, most of us probably couldn’t give a coherent fact based lecture on climate change that could last more than a minute or two. Climate change is a complicated matter. Science has essentially confirmed that our climate is changing, and in all probability due to human activities. To logically confront these scientists one would have to find properly trained scientists in the field who do not work for the carbon emissions industries. In the absence of that, what basis other than vague feelings can one have to oppose efforts to prevent climate change?
Most major issues facing the entire planet today are complicated. This makes it difficult for democracies, or any other form of government, to properly address these issues. We end up too often with the blind leading the blind via varied feelings as opposed to any real comprehension of the issues at stake. What does this bode for the future? “The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.”
Pondering just about everything is in my nature. The gentleman in question lives in my building, which is the only reason I know him. He bothers no one. He is pleasant to everyone. So why is he so unsympathetic to the less fortunate in his own country, or to let some victims of ISIS, now living in refugee camps get asylum, at least temporary here in the U.S? Especially since these Category 1 Republicans are invariably the most professed ‘patriots’, willing in almost every incidence, to support whatever invasion of the moment, or at least let the same ‘unfortunates’ be the casualties and targets for snipers and land mines, etc. Perhaps I miss the point, instead of entitlements we could do just that—put the less fortunate in the military and send them off, rewarded I guess with mandatory memorial ceremonies at half time during sport games. It just seems if we are going to invade other countries as sort of a national pastime, then everyone should need sacrifice not just paid mercenaries.
His lack of sympathy for the less fortunate seems to come from ‘family values’. This guy has nephews and nieces, and great nieces or whatever by the dozens. It is a very close knit group and they gather for all sorts of birthdays, weddings, etc. constantly. The gift exchanges alone must be by the hundreds, a sort of the ‘haves’ giving to the ‘haves’. To my knowledge he has few, if any, friends outside this genetic cabal. Of course there is nothing wrong with being friendly, where possible, with genetic relatives—but an ethical problem arises when that is where empathy ends. Apparently ‘only families count’ is ok. Somehow, if this is the case, why would the gentleman in question ever develop any empathy with diversity of any sort? His is a world of ‘every family for themselves’.
Practically all the active hostilities around the globe today, whether it be terrorism or ground wars, involve religious or ethnic cabals. Perhaps it would be a tad more peaceful around the globe if we got rid of such cabals and all just followed the global principle called the Golden Rule—an inherent genetic component of the human genome. Perhaps we don’t need ‘family values’ but instead an ‘all lives matter’ mentality. For those who think otherwise and commit crimes against other humans, we just put them in jail.
The more we connect with reality, the more we understand that the evolutionary process is far from finished, and so many kinks yet to be ironed out. Are we the last species whose evolutionary progress will just culminate as the creme de la creme of species and evolution be over? I sure hope we don’t end up with any more species with varied inherited religions.
P.S. Having the Golden Rule be the ethical principle for any society is not so much a moral issue as a ‘family value’ protection. Parents genuinely and rightfully so, want the best of possible futures for their offspring. Granted this is a valid desire, everyone needs to understand an important historical fact.
Only very few empires of any sort collapse because they lacked military might. Empires almost always fall for two reasons: the cost of maintaining an empire abroad becomes too expensive, and the distribution of wealth at home becomes too concentrated among too few. Any society which is serious about protecting the future of their own offspring, better understand that until the playing fields are reasonably fair for all citizens——and especially children, that society will implode upon itself. When in history has there been an exception? The extent of ‘ghettoes’ determines the future, not the degree of wealth of the wealthy.
