Thread: "Why I'm voting Republican"

To be perfectly honest, this upcoming American presidential is pretty lose-lose for the rational Republican (in before "there's no such thing").

I think the best candidate we had was John Huntsman. He was experienced, diplomatic, not too extreme, and seemed to just have his shit together, generally. Unfortunately, he was too reasonable, and the base got rid of him pretty quickly.

Santorum, to be honest, is a little scary. I'm a religious person, I will admit, but he seems to be gunning for a theocracy. Not only is that bad policy and against everything America stands for, but it pretty much assures him as unelectable.

Gingrich is even scarier, mostly because I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He kind of reeks of evil, Cheney like.

Mitt Romney is a panderer. I have no idea who he actually his, because his story is perpetually changing depending on who he is talking to. The base doesn't like him, the moderates don't like him, he's basically a default because all of the good republican candidates either didn't run or have been eliminated already.

Ron Paul is actually my favorite of those left standing. Sure, the gold standard is ridiculous and he has a few other ideas that are a bit out there, but Congress could keep his crazy in check and what he could get done I believe would actually be good.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and that's the way that I vote. I think that social issues are very subjective, and thus a poor reason to vote for anything. While I do have my beliefs about certain social issues, I can't really say I'm right because I don't believe there is a right. I can only judge things based upon that I view as truth, or at least things where I believe a truth exists. There are no truths on most social issues from my perspective, so I don't base my judgement on things like that one way or another unless someone is batshit crazy. I'm a fiscal conservative, because in my experience, with everything I have learned, that system seems like the one that works the best. I'm also a bit of a utilitarian, and conservative policy tends to fall in line with that moreso than liberal policy.

If a great democrat were to run (essentially a social progressive who was a fiscal conservative) I would vote for them. But barring the existence of that option I will always vote conservative, because for the things that matter most to me their way suits me better than the alternative.

I am pro gay marriage. I am, to an extent, pro abortion.I am pro religious freedom and believe religion has no place in politics or running a nation. However, these issues don't really matter to me. Does this make me a bad person? In all honesty, on some of those points (specifically the way I view the poor), maybe. But I am who I am, and that's all that I am. I'm Popeye the Republican man (toot toot).

Originally Posted by gwahir

Take slavery again as an example of a social matter that divided the nation. Or women voting. Do you think there is no truth when it comes to the rightness of slavery, or gender-discriminating voting? Or do you just think all the big issues like that are sorted, and the social issues that remain today are by nature less black and white?

My own view on the matter is that, though issues today are subtler, and not as easy to discern right from wrong as in slavery, there IS still right and wrong, and we should strain ourselves to choose the best possible options. History grants us magnificent perspective -- we should always try to be on the right side of it.

Be specific: what is it about fiscal conservatism that works? Reaganism might have led to a flourishing economy in the sense of thriving, powerful, world-scale corporations, but the trickle-down solution seems to have contributed in a terrible sense to the depressingly massive wealth disparity in the U.S. "Trickle-down" and "cut spending!" are almost the only things I ever hear conservatives say in terms of the economy.

I do think that today's social issues are, for the most part, less black and white. The major obvious issues have already been sorted through (in America anyway), and now we are down to issues where there is just a lot of gray. Granted, I know what I believe is right on things like abortion, but it would be very presumptuous of me to say that what I think is the way it should be.

It wasn't like that in the past. There was no "Well, I think we should stop killing, beating, and enslaving black people, but I'm not so sure..." in the mind of any rational and ethical human being. With the big stuff sorted out we are now debating issues such as "Is he being paid too much?", "Should she get this just because she exists?", "When are you alive?", and similar gray issues. There are rational arguments on both sides, and to me not a lot of real answers to be had. I know what I believe, I know what others believe, but there is no way for me to honestly and undoubtedly know that I am correct or they are incorrect.

As far as the economics go, that actually boils down to my opinions on what people deserve. You and I have sparred on this topic many-a-time, but for the uninitiated I will divulge a bit. I believe that anyone can accomplish what they set out to. Call me an idealist, a fool, or anything else, but from everything I've lived through and seen others live through I believe in the power of the individual. I believe that when you excel you should be rewarded. Along with that I also believe that when you stagnate or fail to excel you should not be rewarded. Needless to say, I am very anti-everyone-gets-a-trophy.

There is wealth disparity, but that disparity is not to blame for the current state of the economy. I won't get into an at length discussion of the issues responsible for the market crash and slow recovery, but I will say that it doesn't have much to do with the fact that rich guys exist. It has more to do with the fact that rich guys were given too much wiggle room to play on the outskirts of the rules (thanks, Bill Clinton).

I don't really view the wealth disparity to be a bad thing. The wealth disparity is not a barrier to entry into the working world. The wealth disparity isn't to blame for low graduation rates or the increased complacency within American culture. When not properly motivated any given American would more likely than not prefer to be given something at the expense of someone else than to work for it. This is a problem regardless of wealth. While no Republican really has the platform that I would want from an economic perspective at the moment, Republican's are closer. Entitlements disincentivize innovation and exceptionalism in America. This is not true in basically every other country in the world, but in America it is, and it will not easily be changed (if it can be at all).

I think America becoming an entitlement society will be more or less the end of it barring some sort of massive and sudden cultural shift, and therefore I support conservative politics. I also think that the wealthy should not be punished for the fact that they made of themselves the best they could. I know if I was a millionaire I wouldn't want to be taxed at 60% or more like in some other countries to fund programs for those without the initiative to work themselves into position to be able to care for themselves. Why should I wish to enact that on someone else?

I could get deeper into the economics here, calling on theory and whatnot, but it is late and I don't feel like it.