|
|
|
home about archives |
08/06/2003 Why do I believe I could never be a republican? It has to be for something more fundamental than traditional party loyalty. And, as I've already pointed out, I don't admire every democratic politician. What is it, then, that makes me more comfortable with the democratic point of view? Three reasons jump out at me: the republican philosophy of life and view of people; the hypocrisy of republicans; and finally, republican mean-spiritedness and cruelty. I am not a republican because first and foremost my philosophy of life - and understanding of people - differs drastically from theirs. The democratic and republican parties have differing views of human nature. By human nature I mean the tendency of human beings to be one way or another, to be basically good or evil, moral or immoral, generous or greedy, faithful or unfaithful, trustworthy or untrustworthy. Republicans have a very black and white view of the nature of man. On the one hand, when promoting their economic policies, they appear to be stubborn believers in man's innate goodness. Their promotion of radical free markets, unregulated business, less governmental aid to the poor, lower taxes and privatizing social security, among other policies, is evidence of that. They insist that capitalism, left to itself, will be beneficial to all. Trickle down economics and radical individualism are republican mantras that assume that everyone has an equal shot at the "American Dream," that the wealthy will take care of the poor that didn't get trickled down on, and unregulated business can be trusted to do what's right. Republicans simply expect people to be good. On the other hand, when people don't behave morally or ethically, republicans put them in the evil camp. The president's words since 9-11 ("axis of evil" and "evildoers") provide more than a hint of this with respect to the labeling of America's "enemies." Republicans are fond of labeling individuals (Bill and Hillary Clinton), groups (liberals, Palestinians, Communists, anti-war activists) and even nations (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) as evil. This explains much of their crime legislation as well as foreign policy. When republicans determine that people or nations are evil, of course, then these evildoers must be punished. Thus, Clinton was impeached, Hillary is personally trashed in right wing talk shows and publications, and Afghanistan and Iraq are attacked. Democrats, in my opinion, are more realistic about the nature of man. While democrats profess the belief that people CAN be good, and while they continue to hope for the best, they accept that humans are ultimately flawed creatures, frequently selfish, weak and easily tempted to do wrong, especially when they get together in corporate board meetings. Because democrats do not expect people to be perfect, they understand the need for some governmental regulation. Sometimes, they think, man must be protected from himself - or more accurately, people must sometimes be protected from each other. Thus, democrats believe in the importance of governmental oversight, especially of businesses that all citizens are dependent upon - like energy companies and the media. They also believe in the importance of protecting labor against unscrupulous management practices and so traditionally it has been the democratic party that has championed labor unions. Democrats are not so naive as to believe governments or unions always do the right thing, but they believe that these organizations are strengthened with the power of many voices and can hammer out reasonable and balanced policies as long as negotiations aren't done in secret. Typical republican and democratic foreign policies provide further evidence of these differing views of human nature. It is the republican presidents of the past two decades who have branded our opponents in the world as "evil." Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union "the evil empire" while today George Bush calls North Korea, Iraq and Iran the "axis of evil." When you forget that people in foreign countries are also human beings and you label their countries as evil, it is easier to justify wars against them, including wars that we begin. It is also far more dangerous. After 9-11, for example, a good number of scholars, politicians, journalists and ordinary Americans were asking "why do they hate us?" Understanding why a sizable group of people want to destroy you might be an important first step in formulating a strategy to protect yourself. The current republican administration, however, wanted none of that. America is good and terrorists are evil and that is that. They hate us, as George W. Bush says, not for our foreign policy, but "for our freedoms." Democrats (at least those of the progressive persuasion), on the other hand, tend to favor negotiations and sanctions before they march off to war because, while they believe human beings are flawed, they also believe some of them can be reached through dialogue. They also see the importance of avoiding the deaths, if at all possible, of innocent civilians as well as our own soldiers. They don't see countries with opposing views as necessarily evil. And while democrats today join their president in condemning terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, they are not as quick to see entire countries as evil. They are more willing to examine American policy as one factor in the violence that is being aimed at us. Without understanding the root causes, they believe, how do you ever change things? War, incarceration and hostilities don't make us safer. After all, we have waged two wars and have not managed to kill or capture the two leaders we fear the most. Democrats are just as patriotic as their republican counterparts, but they aren't as chauvinistic. They don't believe that America is the most worthy country in the world with the most worthy people. Unlike the republicans, they don't adopt an "us vs. them" or "my country right or wrong" attitude. Instead, they see America as one of the more politically evolved countries in the world, and surely one of the best places to live, but one that also has an obligation to lead, understand, educate and negotiate rather than just go to war. Democrats embrace all nationalities, races and cultures and see the common - however flawed - humanity in all. (Yes, democratic presidents - FDR, LBJ and even Clinton have taken the country to war, but the current republican strategy of preemptive war goes beyond anything seen before.) Unfortunately, this is what makes some republicans accuse democrats of being un-American. Republicans take pride in seeing themselves as the direct ideological descendants of the founding fathers. This is reflected, among other things, in their emphasis on the freedom to own guns and pursue wealth as well as their emphasis on small government. A few things they forget about the founding fathers is that they were all Caucasian slave-owners, they didn't allow women to vote, and they lived on farms at great distances from each other. America has its own dark history and is still evolving, creating new problems (and the need for - by definition - progressive solutions) as it does. Times have changed. Today our nation is a multi-colored, multi-ethnic one. The horror of slavery has been abolished. Women can vote. Guns have evolved from the muskets and rifles of the eighteenth century to the deadly semi-automatic weapons of today. And people live on top of each other in high rises or ten feet away from each other in the suburbs. As we move closer and closer together there are more opportunities to hurt each other. If you believe people are - or must be - good, you don't recognize the need for some protective statutes. If you recognize that people are flawed (not evil), you are more anxious to enact laws limiting guns, corporate power and discrimination. In the democratic view, all people are capable of doing bad things, or doing neutral things that have results that are harmful, even devastating to others. People don't always think of all the consequences, or they only think of what the consequences will be to them. The Enron debacle is a good example. Here we saw the executives in the company act only in their own interests in the way they managed the business, the subsidiaries, the accounting and even their own stock portfolios, and thus allowed the company to collapse. Their self-interest and greed, their failure to look at what would happen to their employees, (perhaps even their deliberate undermining of the company for their own purposes) led to disaster for thousands. While this is something to be condemned, it isn't all that surprising if you're a democrat. Democrats know that people do bad things. Of course, the republicans aren't solely responsible for the havoc wreaked by Enron. Members of both parties took campaign contributions from Enron, voted to deregulate energy and allow tax exemptions for Enron and other large corporations. Many democrats did side with the typical republican pro-business stance and the typical politician's willingness to take anyone's money. And they should all be ashamed! But, in general, the democrats have not favored business over the individual. Typically, democrats have believed in the necessity of governmental regulation and oversight of business while the republicans have been in favor of unregulated big business and radical free markets. Democrats favor regulation because of their awareness that in certain situations (namely when big money and great power are involved) some individuals cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It's just too tempting to go for the money and clean up the mess later, if it can be cleaned up. In the Enron case, the mess cannot be fixed. Civil lawsuits will probably not reap any financial restitution for the employees because the money is already gone. It now appears that there weren't any laws to protect the ordinary employees. Another example of the difference in philosophy between republicans and democrats is seen in their views towards sex. Republicans seem to have an aversion to sex and believe it is enough to promote abstinence to teenagers. They condemn campaigns to distribute or promote condoms because they believe that teenagers can be chaste and, once educated properly, will choose to remain virgins. ( If they don't, oh well, perhaps they're just evil.) Democrats, on the other hand, kind of like sex, and understand the reality of sexual desire and sexual pressure among American teens. They know the benefits of abstinence, including limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and reducing the number of teen pregnancies, but they understand teens need more than lectures on abstinence. Teens have always been and always will be driven by hormones. Sexual behavior in some teens is a given. Therefore, democrats believe, it is worth it to try to save their lives by promoting the use of condoms. Republican policies towards sex, abortion and homosexuality bring us to the second reason I could never be a republican: their blatant and unashamed hypocrisy. Republicans want to believe in the goodness of people except, of course, when it comes to their genitals. Republicans act as if they think genitals - especially female or gay genitals - and not money, are the root of all domestic evil. (Attorney General John Ashcroft even thinks the nude statues in the Justice Department are evil and must be covered.) Hence their policies of discrimination against gays - even though they do not know - and furthermore don't want to know - what makes a person homosexual or heterosexual. Republicans also want to legislate against abortion, rather than allowing the "innate goodness of woman" to help her choose for herself what is right or healthy or even life-saving. To many republicans, women who seek abortions are simply evil and can't be trusted. The hypocrisy is that while republicans claim they want small government, the truth is that they only want small government in the banks and the boardrooms. In the bedroom they want as much government as they can get away with. Republicans also show hypocrisy in their attitudes towards crime and punishment. For a group of people who want us to buy the idea that they believe man is born good, republicans sure preach a lot about crime and punishment. Apparently, republicans not only think man is born good, they demand that he remain good. When he doesn't, this can only mean that he has become an evil aberration. Republicans, therefore, react with outrage when a law is broken and then demand harsh punishment. Good examples of this are the stiff penalties for possession of drugs, the "three strikes" sentencing guidelines, and the death penalty. In the republican mind set, it seems, crime is a contradiction of man's true nature, inexcusable and abhorrent, and therefore always deserving of punishment. Thus, when crimes are committed, republicans tend to want stiff penalties, including the death penalty. I doubt if there is a single republican in congress who is opposed to the death penalty. Even the conservative supreme court Justice Scalia and the conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, both members of the Catholic Church whose leaders denounce the death penalty, are in favor of capital punishment. As governor of Texas, George Bush, a republican and a "Christian," watched over more executions in the nineties than any other governor. There is further hypocrisy here because of the modern Republican party's affiliation with the conservative Christian movement. As a lifelong student of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, I believe the man Jesus would not recognize any of his ideas in these republican "Christians." Jesus taught the principles of love, peace, non-violence, forgiveness, charity and turning the other cheek. These self proclaimed Christians are discriminatory, pro-military, pro-war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-wealth and pro-vengeance. The republican stance with respect to the second amendment is another illustration of how the republicans combine their belief in the goodness of man with their outrage when he mocks them by behaving badly. The republican party has interpreted the second amendment very broadly (and wrongly, in my opinion) by insisting there should be very few limitations on gun ownership. Although republicans believe everyone ought to be trusted with a gun, they demand harsh punishment when those guns are used to hurt someone. (I've never understood this. How do you advocate the ownership and use of a tool whose sole purpose is to kill people and then be surprised and outraged when that is what happens?) The democratic policy is more realistic. Democrats understand that man tends to get himself into trouble with dangerous weapons and so they want to protect the innocent by limiting the number of guns (especially assault rifles) in circulation, and prevent criminals from obtaining guns by insisting on background checks. Democrats also look at law and punishment differently. They too believe in punishment for crime, but they don't see many incarcerated criminals as all that different from those of us who remain free. They look at circumstances of poverty, mental illness, addiction and other factors that can account for much crime and wonder how any person might act if born into those circumstances. They don't excuse crime, they just accept the inevitability of it, and therefore the need for laws that limit man's opportunities to commit crime. They also know that anyone can succumb to temptation, even a young George Bush or a middle-aged Bill Clinton. Therefore, they aren't as horrified or as vindictive as republicans when someone violates an ethical code. I believe that is why they tend to be more compassionate towards some criminals and less rabid in their search for corruption in the president of the opposing party. Speaking of the search for corruption, republicans make a sport of it. This leads me to the third reason I could never be a republican - their mean spirited ugliness. Certainly both parties like to find fault with each other, but here democrats can't hold a candle to republicans. No one can look back at the Whitewater witch hunt or the impeachment proceeding against Bill Clinton and forget the moralistic diatribes of Tom Delay, Bob Barr, Dick Armey and all the foaming-at-the-mouth republican radio talk show hosts. One female republican pundit on radio even said "The only thing left to decide about Bill Clinton is whether he should be impeached or assassinated." Good thing Clinton wasn't a republican and John Ashcroft wasn't attorney general when she said that. She might be the only female at Guantanamo. And what about the sex and divorce scandals of republican politicians: former speaker of the house and current member of the Defense Policy Board Newt Gingrich, would-be speaker of the house Bob Livingston and representatives Henry Hyde and Dan Burton? Did democrats make as big a deal of their moral failings as republicans did of President Clinton's? The answer is no. The stories of their moral failings couldn't even get a foothold in the press. In fact, Bill Clinton was just the latest in a long line of bogeymen that republicans have created to blame for the ills of society. When you want to hold onto your philosophy that man's true nature is good (so that you and your friends can get filthy rich from removing regulations on corporations), you must have someone to blame when your society seems to be falling apart. Republican politicians have attacked blacks, feminists, immigrants, communists, Hollywood, and liberals. Liberals, according to conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are the reason the American family is in trouble today. According to the republicans, it is liberal activists, rather than the nature of man, that accounts for evil in the world. Good people (at least good conservative American people), left to themselves with no government to prevent them from earning the "American Dream," will be good, say republicans. But the republicans did more than just try to defeat Bill Clinton. They tried to annihilate him and anyone near him. They didn't care who suffered, not Chelsea, his young daughter, not Betty Curry, his loyal secretary, not the scores of civil servants and patriotic aides, largely ignorant of his personal life, who were forced to go into debt to hire lawyers for protection against the witch hunters. They didn't care about the rest of the country and all of the "people's work" in Congress that didn't get done while they were obsessed with the president's sex life. They didn't care about the "children" (as in "what do we tell the children?") that they scandalized by releasing Ken Starr's voluminous pornographic report to the public. Whatever Bill Clinton did, he did in private. But it only became public because the republicans dug up the lurid details with the help of a stained dress, a witless intern, her disgruntled, vindictive "friend" and a conservative republican special prosecutor. The republicans, in their effort to destroy the president, horrified a nation. Which is why, I believe, the public opinions polls never favored the President's impeachment. If there's one attribute the average American displays it's fairness, and the republican treatment of the president was grossly unfair. Yes, Bill Clinton acted immorally and yes he did not show the respect for his office he should have. But his crimes weren't crimes of state and did not call for his removal from office. And finally, there can be no justification for what the republicans did to the president's wife. They vilified, mocked and tried their best to humiliate her. They called her a murderer, an adulteress and a lesbian. When she said on television that she knew there was a right wing conspiracy against her husband, she was speaking the truth, but they laughed at her because finally, after eight years of trying, they were able to expose Bill Clinton as a "threat to the nation." They discovered that he had lied to cover up a sexual impropriety - just like Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston. I guess he was a sexual threat. He sure wasn't an economic threat, a military threat or a threat to civil liberties. On the other hand, the democrats now show their loyalty to the republican president, whom they had every reason to hate and vilify after he stole the election with the help of his brother, the governor of Florida, a conservative Supreme Court, and Florida's secretary of state Katherine Harris (whose dirty tricks resulted in the illegal removal of thousands of African Americans from the Florida voting rolls), as well as some questionable ballot configurations. The democrats aren't - as far as I know - hatching plots to investigate Bush land deals, trying to wire interns to catch him in a lie, or accusing him of murder, even though a case could be made that thousands of innocent civilians were murdered by the bombs of two preemptive wars. Except they weren't Americans so they don't count. Democrats may believe George W. Bush did not really win the presidency, they may have legally challenged the election, but ultimately they accepted the process and moved on. They may not like Bush's policies or even think he is the one really running the country, but they are not spending millions to humiliate him and overturn an election, however flawed it may have been. At this point most democrats in Congress still support the war against Iraq even as they question the administration's truthfulness in getting us there. So who really are the patriots and loyal Americans? So that is why I could never be a republican. I can't stomach their hypocrisy and their hatred of those they see as their enemies. I can't accept that all men are born good. I would like to believe that humans are born with only a benevolent and moral set of characteristics: goodness, generosity, faithfulness and trustworthiness. I would like to, but I can't. Having walked the planet for fifty-five years, studied history, and watched the news each night, I see the weakness in human beings. I no longer expect people to be good, as I once did when I was an idealistic high school student. In my twenty-five years as a psychotherapist, I have learned that human beings are complicated and while capable of great good, great generosity and great compassion, are also capable of great wrongdoing, greed and inhumanity. That isn't to say all people are wicked. However, the notion that people, left to their own devices, will always do good is starry-eyed fantasy. On the other hand, the notion that some people are totally evil precludes our ever being able to get along with them and resolve our differences. People are capable of good AND evil, the more evil among us occasionally doing good, and even the best among us occasionally succumbing to temptation. The republican party is a good example of this. Its leaders are self-proclaimed proponents of family values but many of them can't walk the straight and narrow any better than democrats. They break their marriage vows and their children use drugs and alcohol just like those crazy liberal Hollywood kids. Their high priest of virtues Bill Bennett even admitted recently to losing millions in a fondness for gambling. They say they believe in equality but they discriminate against gays and women. They wear Christianity like a badge while they polish their guns and send people to die in wars and death chambers. It doesn't really shock us democrats, though, because it is what we expect. So for now I remain more allied with the democratic party's ideals of government regulation (as long as there are effective checks and balances to keep everyone honest), fairer taxes (including higher taxation of the wealthy - not to punish them for their wealth, but to ask them to pay a higher share because they have benefited more than most in a free economy), protection of workers, gun control, prison systems oriented towards rehabilitation whenever possible and a foreign policy that embraces all nations and peoples as equal and works to build understanding rather than animosity. However, ideals and actions are two different things. I am not terribly proud of the actions of democrats right now. They have not been a strong opposition party and they back down whenever the republicans attack them too fiercely. They are not fighting as vigorously for the people as they have in the past and they have allowed some terrible policies to become law. If they don't find their backbones soon and stop being intimidated by Bush's so-called popularity, I may be tempted to write an article about why I am no longer a democrat. - Ellen Terich All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com |