Are You a South Park Republican?

[Yeahman]

When people think "Republican" they think George W Bush or Pat Robertson. But there is a large number of libertarian Republicans. They elected the Terminator, Guiliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, and McCain.

The guy who coined the term, Andrew Sullivan, is a gay Republican who sometimes votes Democrat in protest. The "South Park" part refers to the show's creators who say that they "hate conservatives but really fucking hate liberals."

So why are they even Republican? Mostly because of their fiscal conservatism and patriotism. They are strong believers in free markets and a strong military. They find the social conservatism in the Republican party more easily forgivable than the protectionism, socialism, and anti-Americanism in the Democratic party.

[thaite]

I think it's funny how you say the Democratic party is anti-American as a foregone conclustion.

And protectionism? You don't think there isn't a large and influential contingent on the right who would prefer that we not send US labor to China or India, or who would prefer that we not import from Japan, Korea or Taiwan? You are kidding yourself.

[snailpoo]

I think it's funny how you say the Democratic party is anti-American as a foregone conclustion.

And protectionism? You don't think there isn't a large and influential contingent on the right who would prefer that we not send US labor to China or India, or who would prefer that we not import from Japan, Korea or Taiwan? You are kidding yourself.

To which the answer would be:

But there is a large number of libertarian Republicans. They elected the Terminator, Guiliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, and McCain.

[thaite]

No, I would venture to say that the people I'm referring to tend to be the blue-collar employees of industrial manufacturers. The very people whose jobs are threatened by overseas labor. They aren't libertarian, free market types.

[snailpoo]

And the steel tarrifs? Or the import quotas for wood? Or the government deals with the automakers, and not just the Detroit ones, but the domesticated Japanese ones dotted throughout the south and the midwest?

Are those not "Republican" policies?


I think the idea is that labels such as "Republican" and "Democrat" take on their own meanings in whatever locale you happen to be in. In Georgia, Sam Nunn was a Democrat, but he's far to the right of New York's Guliani, a Republican.

[thaite]

I think the idea is that labels such as "Republican" and "Democrat" take on their own meanings in whatever locale you happen to be in. In Georgia, Sam Nunn was a Democrat, but he's far to the right of New York's Guliani, a Republican.

The labels are absolute, but the meaning is relative. Look at the history of the Dem Party in the south from the 1950s on in regards to the Dixiecrat split. Previous to the Civil Rights movement , Blacks were typically Republican and the KKK was Democrat. Civil Rights were probably the foremost influential issue in changing the base for both parties.

[Yeahman]

I think it's funny how you say the Democratic party is anti-American as a foregone conclustion.

And protectionism? You don't think there isn't a large and influential contingent on the right who would prefer that we not send US labor to China or India, or who would prefer that we not import from Japan, Korea or Taiwan? You are kidding yourself.
Clinton did more for free trade than Bush. There are plenty of exceptions but the strongest opponents of free trade tend to be Democrats.

Anti-Americanism if defined as a lack of pride in the US, is absent in the Republican party. That's just the reality. You can't conceive of an anti-American voting for Bush. You can see them voting for Kerry.

[younggiftedandblack]

I would class myself a s South Park Republican.

The Dems have allowed the Repubs to paint them as Anti- American, God, Military, Family. Soft on crime, pro abortion, pro welfare, Socialist, Godless, weak , wishy washy and big government.

[haplesshobo]

But there is a large number of libertarian Republicans. They elected the Terminator, Guiliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, and McCain.

So why are they even Republican? Mostly because of their fiscal conservatism and patriotism. They are strong believers in free markets and a strong military. They find the social conservatism in the Republican party more easily forgivable than the protectionism, socialism, and anti-Americanism in the Democratic party.

I don't think that was the reason they won. The key was their liberal social policies- Terminator, Gullani, Pataki, and Bloomberg were all more socially liberal than Southern Republicans where they were more supportive of gay rights and abortion rights. Without those stands, there was no way they would have won in solidly democratic states, or a city as overwhelmingly liberal as nyc. Just from the number of dem vs. rep. voters in nyc, the key was winning over enough democratic support. And, how republican is Bloomerg really? Didn't he register republican just because he wanted to be mayor? I don't think he really ever had allegienance to either party previously, before he ran for mayor.

[snailpoo]

And, how republican is Bloomerg really? Didn't he register republican just because he wanted to be mayor? I don't think he really ever had allegienance to either party previously, before he ran for mayor.
Actually, he was a registered Democrat and previously ran for office as a Democrat. :biggrin:

I think everyone's arguing around the same tree. You're going to have HUGE regional variations on what a Republican or a Democrat entails depending on where in the nation you happen to be. Just as many Democrats in California and New York cannot picture Zell Miller as a Democrat, many Republicans in the South can't picture Bloomberg as a Republican.

I think the whole point of what ye110man is saying is that the parties aren't monolitic entities with uniform agendas.

[A.R.A.M.]

Anti-Americanism if defined as a lack of pride in the US, is absent in the Republican party. That's just the reality. You can't conceive of an anti-American voting for Bush. You can see them voting for Kerry.

I think that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk betray a profound hatred of America as they see it. They claim that America deserves to be punished for its sins. Did you get that? They hate what they see so much that they welcome an attack on the United States, be it natural or man-made. That doesn't seem like pride in the United States. So why not take them to task for their anti-Americanism? Oh, and I can easily conceive of them, and the legions of true believers who uncritically follow them, voting for Republican.

[thaite]

Ditto ARAM

Clinton did more for free trade than Bush. There are plenty of exceptions but the strongest opponents of free trade tend to be Democrats.

i think you are either ignoring or oblivious to the huge amount of anti-China labor/trade sentiment in the right.

Anti-Americanism if defined as a lack of pride in the US, is absent in the Republican party. That's just the reality. You can't conceive of an anti-American voting for Bush. You can see them voting for Kerry.

You're full of bull, and yes I can. I'm sure that in your city, you aren't likely to encounter a lot of right wing militia-types. The kind who wear the second amendment on their chest and hate government but vote Republican because they hate Democrats even more. They produced the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. Not all of them belong to a militia, but the mentality is pervasive.

Have you ever lived anywhere besides New york?

[Yeahman]

I think that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk betray a profound hatred of America as they see it. They claim that America deserves to be punished for its sins. Did you get that? They hate what they see so much that they welcome an attack on the United States, be it natural or man-made. That doesn't seem like pride in the United States. So why not take them to task for their anti-Americanism? Oh, and I can easily conceive of them, and the legions of true believers who uncritically follow them, voting for Republican.
Pat Robertson wants anti-Americans like Hugo Chavez shot. They think the US is the instrument of God.

i think you are either ignoring or oblivious to the huge amount of anti-China labor/trade sentiment in the right.
No I'm not. It's just that there's more of it on the left. Read the posts in this forum. Who does the AFL-CIO endorse? In pre-election surveys of economists Kerry led Bush in all economic issues except for trade. Even may liberals here on YW worried about his protectionist rhetoric.

You're full of bull, and yes I can. I'm sure that in your city, you aren't likely to encounter a lot of right wing militia-types. The kind who wear the second amendment on their chest and hate government but vote Republican because they hate Democrats even more. They produced the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. Not all of them belong to a militia, but the mentality is pervasive.

Have you ever lived anywhere besides New york?
I lived in the Midwest but Chicago doesn't count, does it?

You think Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber voted Republican?

[thaite]

I see your tactic. By claiming that there is 'more X' on the left, you think that it nullifies and overwhelms the criticism of the same 'X' on the right.



hey, if I say there's more racism on the right, does that count out any notion of racism on the left?

[Yeahman]

I see your tactic. By claiming that there is 'more X' on the left, you think that it nullifies and overwhelms the criticism of the same 'X' on the right.
When did I say that?

[A.R.A.M.]

Pat Robertson wants anti-Americans like Hugo Chavez shot. They think the US is the instrument of God.

I think Robertson's suggestion that the U.S. deserves to be attacked because of what he claims are its sins suggests a dissatisfaction with, or a lack of pride in, certain aspects of American life. And a lack of pride in America is your definition of anti-Americanism.

[haplesshobo]

I think the whole point of what ye110man is saying is that the parties aren't monolitic entities with uniform agendas.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement.

But, maybe I was misinterpreting it, but I thought ye11owman was saying that the reason these south park republicans support republican politicians like arnold were because these voters were willing to forgive and overlook the republican social stands because they found the democrats stand on other issuses to be even worse.

However, I disagree with that analysis. If Gullani or Pataki or Arnold had come out with much harsher rhetoric towards abortion and gays, I don't think those politicians would have been able to be elected.

[Yeahman]

But, maybe I was misinterpreting it, but I thought ye11owman was saying that the reason these south park republicans support republican politicians like arnold were because these voters were willing to forgive and overlook the republican social stands because they found the democrats stand on other issuses to be even worse.

However, I disagree with that analysis. If Gullani or Pataki or Arnold had come out with much harsher rhetoric towards abortion and gays, I don't think those politicians would have been able to be elected.
I fail to see how that's a disagreement. The religious right didn't get Arnold elected. His Republican supporters were of the South Park variety. When it comes to socially conservative Republicans, the SPRs tend to stick with them despite the differences. The Republican candidate gets the benefit of the doubt. When they do vote Democrat it's to protest a betrayal of core principles, usually by an incumbent Republican.

[haplesshobo]

People like Gullani and Arnold won because they were able to appeal to enough Independents and Moderates with their more social liberal stands. We're talking about solid democratic states or cities.

You're making the argument that they won despite their social stands, where these SPR were willing to overlook them. But, I'm saying that these SPR didn't overlook the politicians social stands. If Gullani had come out with more conservative social stands, then these SPR would not have necessairly been willing to overlook that and still vote for him.

[Craig]

I'm sick of the bullshit we call the American political system. My only choices are two groups of radical extremists without functioning brains trying to shove their propaganda down my throat.

At work I have to deal with the scumbag neoconservative thinking, once I get outside being surrounded by the Bay Area, I have the aura of whacked out beyond liberalism/socialism/whatever all around.

Sorry, I guess I would have to agree that I "hate conservatives, but really fucking hate liberals".

[thaite]

"two groups of radical extremists," are you kidding? In the US, we have the far right, the moderate right, and the moderate left. Radical left elements are nonexistent or have no political power here.

[Craig]

"two groups of radical extremists," are you kidding? In the US, we have the far right, the moderate right, and the moderate left. Radical left elements are nonexistent or have no political power here.Cross the border into California to visit the left coast. Don't know the exact situation in Hotland, but for instance in Texas the moderate left doesn't even exist.

[thaite]

I've been to California, and I stand by my words. While there may be pockets of leftism, the far left has no political power that can compare to the far right. What is there on the left that can compare to the power of the Moral Majority, the NRA, the oil lobby? Who, PETA? The ELF? The Communist Party? The 'radicai' left of the hippy era doesn't even exist today.

Like it or not, the left has moved to the right.

[Yeahman]

"two groups of radical extremists," are you kidding? In the US, we have the far right, the moderate right, and the moderate left. Radical left elements are nonexistent or have no political power here.
Objectively, compared to the moderate left of the past, the "moderate" left of today is far left. Kerry was nominated because the Dems thought that he was a moderate Democrat. But he was still the most liberal nominee to ever run for president.

Just take these quotes from the the 70's and 80's. Can you guess who said them? Hint: they're 5 different politicians.

1. "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong."
2. "In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal."
3. "What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?"
4. "Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."
5. "Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception. The (Supreme Court's abortion) ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on the Congress to correct the injustice."


1. Bill Clinton 1986
2. Al Gore 1987
3. Jesse Jackson 1977
4. Ted Kennedy 1971
5. Dick Gephardt 1984
And you were saying that the left has moved right?

[thaite]

Yeah, I don't think so. You don't any Abbie Hoffmans in Congress, do you? Instead, you got Joe Leiberman.

[Yeahman]

You don't see any Pat Robertsons as governors. Instead you got the Terminator.

Nobody ever accused Joe Lieberman of being a liberal. But the Terminator passes as conservative these days.

[thaite]

Pat Robertson doesn't need political office to wield political power. He has the ear of many politicians, including the President. He is the founder or co founder of the The 700 Club, the Christian Coalition ACLJ, CBN and more. The support and influence of millions of people in the US.

Who has that on the left? Michael Moore?

The Terminator? You're only proving my point: The Radical Left in the US is virtually nonexistant. There is only the Moderate Left, Moderate Right and the Radical Right.

[Yeahman]

Pat Robertson doesn't need political office to wield political power. He has the ear of many politicians, including the President. He is the founder or co founder of the The 700 Club, the Christian Coalition ACLJ, CBN and more. The support and influence of millions of people in the US.

Who has that on the left? Michael Moore?
Yes. More people probably heard of Fahrenheit 9/11 than the 700 Club.

I don't know how you're defining "radical left" but there's no doubt that both parties have moved to the extremes. If the Democratic party was moderately leftist in the past it is radically leftist today.

[Arex]

Yes. More people probably heard of Fahrenheit 9/11 than the 700 Club.

I don't know how you're defining "radical left" but there's no doubt that both parties have moved to the extremes. If the Democratic party was moderately leftist in the past it is radically leftist today.I guess that would all depend on how you're defining "radical right" and "radical left." Seems like you're defining anything remotely "pro-choice" as radical left.

[thaite]

Yes. More people probably heard of Fahrenheit 9/11 than the 700 Club.

I don't know how you're defining "radical left" but there's no doubt that both parties have moved to the extremes. If the Democratic party was moderately leftist in the past it is radically leftist today.


I see. So the people who have 'probably heard of Fahrenheit 9/11' not only outnumbers but outguns the supporters of Pat Robertson and the 700 Club.

You ought to be happy with that. You're the Democrat.

[Yeahman]

I guess that would all depend on how you're defining "radical right" and "radical left." Seems like you're defining anything remotely "pro-choice" as radical left.
Hardly. Guiliani, Arnold, Pataki, Bloomberg... aren't radical leftists.

[snailpoo]

The Radical Left in the US is virtually nonexistant. There is only the Moderate Left, Moderate Right and the Radical Right.

I think the categorizations of moderate and radical largely depend upon where you fall upon the political spectrum.

As I said earlier, these categories shift depending on where you are in the country. In Georgia, Zell Miller is a Democrat. From a Georgian's point of view, Pataki and Gulliani, while Republican, are moderate left. When you move to New York, Pataki and Gulliani are moderate right.

It's very interesting that you say that there is no "radical left," yet you then mention Michael Moore. Who has more influence? National outcry has several times caused Pat Robertson to express regret for some of his more radical statements. Has Michael Moore retracted some of his more radical statements? Pat Robertson has his 700 club, yet for all the noise they cause, how have they directly influence politics? Michael Moore is the darling of Moveon.org, which incorporates much of the radical left you claim doesn't exist. Are you saying that Moveon.org has no political pull?




There is a healthy radical left in this country, just as there is a healthy radical right. The problem is that the radical left is too isolated in two large population centers in the country to notice that the majority of this country is slightly on the right.

[thaite]

If Michael Moore is your radical, the Dems are in trouble.

[snailpoo]

If Michael Moore is your radical, the Dems are in trouble.

No, it's merely a sign of where you fall on the political spectrum.

[thaite]

Is that right? Tell me, where do I stand?

[snailpoo]

Is that right? Tell me, where do I stand?

This isn't a critique of your beliefs, thaite. There's no need to take offense.

However, where you stand on the political spectrum will color how you see everyone else relative to you. If you were Robertson, you'd be arguing that everybody is moderate or radical left, and that the radical right doesn't exist. From Robertson's perspective, Bush might be moderate left, and Guliani is unacceptable.

Especially in politics when the goal is to win the majority, people tend to believe or want to believe that the majority agrees with them, thus shifting the entire spectrum around to place them in the middle.

[thaite]

so basically you can't tell, even though you said it was pretty transparent.

[snailpoo]

so basically you can't tell, even though you said it was pretty transparent.
No, I've told you twice, politely, if you care to read carefully.

[thaite]

No? I thought so.

[snailpoo]

No? I thought so.

Then read my two posts over again, since you're missing the obvious.

Are you so entrenched in your particular perpsective of the political spectrum that you fail to realize that political categorizations are relative to the viewer and subject to the viewer's own biases?

[thaite]

yes, that is exactly it. you have hit the nail on the head.

[daffodil]

Hi everyone.

This is my first post here but I've seen a lot of the Democrat-Rebpublican argument all over the place. I think what's needed is another party to represent the moderate majority. Most people want the same thing -- jobs, prosperity, patriotism, a decent standard of living, etc. It doesn't really matter what the person's skin colour is or where the person lives. We all want pretty much the same thing.

When I read about the politics in a lot of countries (as well as in my own), I'm finding a lot of polarizing. Politicians are going to the extremes of one side of the spectrum or the other when making policies -- and there's this ginormous gaping whole in representation.

However, lately, I've been seeing Bush in a (slightly) more favourable light. I'm still far from liking him and agreeing with the Iraqi occupation. But, what's happened is that the US is in a lot of debt and there's no way to get out of it.

However, I feel that the "left" represents a very narrow white hegemonic view of the world. They're very pro-union and have a chip on their shoulders right now with respect to Asia. They are basically responsible for sinking North America (more the US than Canada but Canada is well on its way down that same road, though it doesn't like to admit it). Some of the wages commanded by the unions are insane. There are too many examples to even begin citing here. They're duking it out with the corporations, who want the other extreme -- for their entire businesses to be run by cheap labor.

The most important question to ask is: Where is equilibrium? Where is the point where we have a comfortable standard of living that's sustainable? It is there that we can have representative democracy and have a shot at stopping the racism, war, and all the nasty things that we've seen way too much of in human history.

Globalization is inevitable simply because the technology exists to do it. As long as the public knows about it, it will be used and globalization will become more real. And so it should be -- why should non-western countries choose to remain poor? Why should they choose a lower standard of living and remain undeveloped?

But, alas, there are only so many resources in the world. We need to develop technologies to get off the planet or find ways of expanding, or contract the size of human civilization. Right now, the groups represent hoarding on one side or the other. But, in a true representative society, I think most of us would be happy to live moderate lives with modest consumption -- and there simply isn't a politician right now, in any country, that represents what most people want. Well, Fidel Castro is the exception.

There isn't even a name aside from "moderate" of politics that represents what i want. I really hate the "McDonalds Value Meal" type of politics -- where if you really agree with one policy a party has to offer, you are forced into voting for all the other platforms you might not agree with. And, at the end of the day, you feel the need to exercise your democratic rights but there isn't anyone on the ballot that represents everything you want.

[snailpoo]

This thread is suddenly rather relevant again.

[Yeahman]

For the record, Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Hillary Obama supporter but he likes McCain too.
Also, many have criticized Sullivan of moving left in recent years.