Not pleased with my party at this time

[ARTelevision]

I will be withholding my regular donations to the Republican Party for the time being as a result of my embarrassment (for lack of a better word) regarding the ways in which religious views are clouding good leadership in this country. That’s how I see it.

The Schiavo fiasco has been perpetuated by the impetus of so many religious conservative voices, including those of my President, that I’m informing the party that, as a result, it won’t be receiving my funds until I decide to do otherwise.

I always decided to look the other way as regards the influence of religion over politics because I acknowledge the necessity of some political expediency in real politics in relation to the requirement of actually getting elected.

Religious views are only interesting to me as fascinating examples of the human mind in operation. I have finally reached an overload in my ability to overlook their most recent incursion into politics. To throw support behind people as absolutely selfish and cruel as Terri Schiavo’s parents and to work so hard to upset legal and medical normalcy is short-sighted, self-involved, and narrow-minded to the extreme. This is how I see it.

In any event, enlightened leadership in this case would have proceeded to explain to the citizenry why we have branches of government in the first place and why, in matters such as this, legal and medical precedents are paramount. A word of advice to legislative bodies - that this case had been decided long ago and that if a different result is desired for future cases then that is what the legislative process is made for - would have been in order here.

I don’t know what all this betokens for my future political evolution, but it is a stark indicator of where I am now.

[dksuddeth]

two words.........Libertarian Party

[j8ear]

I second those two words.

Since the democrats are irrelevant and the republicans are essentially EXACTLY the freaking same...I will no longer support either.

It's time for a third party to take up the reigns and become a major contender...one with principles and the backbone to stick to them.

I am fully on board giving the libertarians a shot.

This stems for me almost exclusively from the Schiavo fiasco...but also in a smaller sense a general disgust that some corrupt sack of shit like Tom Delay can ascend to the top echelons of a political party. This does not speak highly of that party.

-bear

[Seaver]

I agree with you ART (as the majority of times I do) that the religious right has taken the reigns of power in the Republican Party and steering it the wrong direction to continue it's stronghold on American politics.

Unfortuantely I'm hesitant to throw my support behind the Libertarian party because I fear it will help the Democratic party and lead the power in the opposite direction in which I want it to go.

Hopefully our next Presidential candidate will be more center of the road (McCain) and not pander too much to the religious right.

[ARTelevision]

Thanks but as one who prefers engagement with what I define as real possibilities for creating change, I eschew the Libertarian alternative. I've stated this in threads dealing with the subject. I see no viable future for such political affiliation.

Having no tendency whatsoever toward idealism, I prefer that my candidates are ones with real opportunities for being elected in large enough numbers that they have significant power to effect change.

Yes, Seaver, we are of one mind about this it seems.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

We need a canidate like McCain, unlike Bush he doesn't need the religious right to get elected, Bush did. I figure all he'd really have to do is play chicken with them anyways, lord knows the religies would rather vote Mccain then for a bunch of "baby killing, homosexual loving, limocab liberals".

[kutulu]

I can only hope that this issue can cause a split in the GOP. If the small govt. GOP goes to the LBT then the GOP will be left with mostly the religious right. Without the small govt GOPs to give them extra votes, the RR will be exposed as the fanatics they are and us Dems will pwn both parties. Gay marriage and universal healthcare here we come!

Of course if too many GOP flee to the LBT they might become too strong and start getting elected. Then they will go on a privatization spree and screw everything up. ----> No more environmental, workplace safety, and consumer protections anymore, everthing is up for sale and the class gaps widen

However, if not enough GOPs leave then the GOP nominee's will get more and more radical --> Execute the abortioners, shut down porn and anything not inspired by God. Forced prayer in public schools and mandated Christianity

We're screwed either way.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

We need a canidate like McCain, unlike Bush he doesn't need the religious right to get elected, Bush did. I figure all he'd really have to do is play chicken with them anyways, lord knows the religies would rather vote Mccain then for a bunch of "baby killing, homosexual loving, limocab liberals".

How do you think McCain lost the SC primary? He's got a major image problem with segments of the religious right and social conservatives.

And he's got Bush's push polling to thank. I'd consider a vote for McCain, depending on who the democrat was. But i don't think he can win a Republican primary after the hatchet job Rove did on him. Frankly, in chosing the spirit of the party to come, the die has already been cast.

[kutulu]

As much as I like McCain (at least I used to) he's been all over the news taling about the Schiavo ordeal. He's not one of the leaders in the political struggle but enjoys being on for the ride.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Thanks but as one who prefers engagement with what I define as real possibilities for creating change, I eschew the Libertarian alternative. I've stated this in threads dealing with the subject. I see no viable future for such political affiliation.

Having no tendency whatsoever toward idealism, I prefer that my candidates are ones with real opportunities for being elected in large enough numbers that they have significant power to effect change.

Yes, Seaver, we are of one mind about this it seems.

But you presently find yourself pulling back, to some degree, from the Republican party.

At some point, it would seem, the concept that the Libertarian party is ineffectual would be outweighed by your displeasure with the direction of the Republican party.

What would you do if there were elections today?

[ARTelevision]

I will be continuing to vote Republican unless or until something new occurs in my mind or in the world. What I am not continuing to do is to contribute my hard-earned funds to the effort. I am also informing interested parties of the reason why I'm doing this.

My interest in politics is solely pragmatic. On balance, my views are consistent with Republican political positions except for those having to do with religious influence. I do not see myself voting for the alternative(s) available. I can accept pragmatic decisionmaking and political expediency as regards politics but I cannot condone preaching from the bully pulpit. And I will not pay for its continuance.

[kutulu]

There is no party that can get to everything a person wants. The best you can do is to get with the party that gives the best support to the issues important to you while not being too radical on items they support but you don't believe in.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I will be continuing to vote Republican unless or until something new occurs in my mind or in the world. What I am not continuing to do is to contribute my hard-earned funds to the effort. I am also informing interested parties of the reason why I'm doing this.

You never struck me as one who would vote simply along party lines. I may be liberatarian, but I'd vote for whoever would do the best job. If a republican was running for president who I thought was best for the job, I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you do the same?

Political parties change. The republicans oif today stand in stark contrast of the republicans of 50 years ago, and them from the republicans preceding them.

[ARTelevision]

As a result of my rejection of the basic assumptions of liberalism and libertarianism, I can not see myself voting for candidates who are not conservative. Drawing fine-grained distinctions in these broad categories is not practical, IMO. However, on the level of basic assumptions, I find it quite acceptable to draw clear distinctions.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

As a result of my rejection of the basic assumptions of liberalism and libertarianism, I can not see myself voting for candidates who are not conservative. Drawing fine-grained distinctions in these broad categories is not practical, IMO. However, on the level of basic assumptions, I find it quite acceptable to draw clear distinctions.

I understand completly. You are a conservative. But what meaning of conservative are you refering to? Many who use the word conservative simply mean republican. If you are saying you will simply vote republican, what value does your vote represent? Conservatism: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Is this what you mean? If this is so....the republicans might not always be conservative. I had a post long ago about the meaning of the word conservative, and how the meaning of the word has changed. (What does conservative REALLY mean?).

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

We need a canidate like McCain, unlike Bush he doesn't need the religious right to get elected, Bush did. I figure all he'd really have to do is play chicken with them anyways, lord knows the religies would rather vote Mccain then for a bunch of "baby killing, homosexual loving, limocab liberals".

I disagree. We need a true conservative, not one that give conservative lip service, then acts like a liberal. I personally really like Haley Barbour of MS, George Allen of VA, and Rick Santorum of PA

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I will be continuing to vote Republican unless or until something new occurs in my mind or in the world. What I am not continuing to do is to contribute my hard-earned funds to the effort. I am also informing interested parties of the reason why I'm doing this.

My interest in politics is solely pragmatic. On balance, my views are consistent with Republican political positions except for those having to do with religious influence. I do not see myself voting for the alternative(s) available. I can accept pragmatic decisionmaking and political expediency as regards politics but I cannot condone preaching from the bully pulpit. And I will not pay for its continuance.

a sound resolution. witholding funds but not support is a first step. If they continue down the path you do not like then one can easily remove the voting support.

[ARTelevision]

willravel, I understand the difficulty in drawing clear semantic distinctions. There are many references in political science that represent attempts to delineate the distinctions between political positions. Self-description makes sense, I think.

In general, I see man as the most selfish, brutal, and competitive animal on earth and not an in-any-way-perfectable being. I see repression as the key component of civilization, therefore I favor certain systems of social control over many alternatives. In general, I affirm Apollonian principles as opposed to Dionysian ones - I'm interested in order as opposed to anarchic tendencies.

These are some of my general philosophical principles. I'm satisfied with broadly describing my own systems of thought in pragmatic ways and I understand that is not the same thing as describing the thoughts of others who may be in opposition to these principles. I have no interest in being argumentative about this.

Rather than descend into spirals of semantics, I'd rather that liberals, libertarians, populists, etc. describe their own assumptions - as they are not my own.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

willravel, I understand the difficulty in drawing clear semantic distinctions. There are many references in political science that represent attempts to delineate the distinctions between political positions. Self-description makes sense, I think.

In general, I see man as the most selfish, brutal, and competitive animal on earth and not an in-any-way-perfectable being. I see repression as the key component of civilization, therefore I favor certain systems of social control over many alternatives. In general, I affirm Apollonian principles as opposed to Dionysian ones - I'm interested in order as opposed to anarchic tendencies.

These are some of my general philosophical principles. I'm satisfied with broadly describing my own systems of thought in pragmatic ways and I understand that is not the same thing as describing the thoughts of others who may be in opposition to these principles. I have no interest in being argumentative about this.

Rather than descend into spirals of semantics, I'd rather that liberals, libertarians, populists, etc. describe their own assumptions - as they are not my own.

It sounds as if your specific political beliefs as are alien to republicans as they are to libertarians or democrats. As a matter of fact, it would be a waste of time to try and fit your beliefs into one of the parties in American politics. I'm afraid the 'critical reason' party has yet to form. It would seem that the ideals of freedom and liberty actually come into conflict with your beliefs of 'repression as the key component of civilization'. If you are a believer that civilization is the right direction for society, then authoritarian society based entirely in reasoning and logic would best fit your political stance. I guess we could call you an Apollonian Authoritarian. That would be at almost the polar opposite side of libertarian, so I can understand why you would not choose to support liberal candidates.

So, to clairfy your point for myself, you are dispelased with the republicans not because of their authoritarian leanings, but because of they're moving away from reason. Is this what you mean?

[ARTelevision]

Yes and toward what I consider to be atavistic thinking - religious beliefs.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Yes and toward what I consider to be atavistic thinking - religious beliefs.

Atavistic thinking is pertaining to religion. Hmmm. Are you refering to philosophical (specifically religious) cycles? I know that various churches and religious bodies go through cycles, just as society, authoritarian to liberated to authoritarian, etc. Atavism is the reappearance of a trait from the past. *thinking* You might have to use four letter words for me to follow this one.

[Superbelt]

ART, perhaps rather than giving to the party, give to individuals in the party who eschew your own views.
Holding back funding but still voting for the same SOB's who let or are part of the hijacking of what the Republican Party used to be is no solution.

Start giving your money to groups within the Republican Party who are fighting the Christian Coalition, or give to individuals who have views who are exactly what you like.
The rise of Internet campaigning has allowed us to seek out candidates who we like who may not even be in our jurisdiction. I donated to two different democrats in Ohio last term and I live in PA. I did it because there was no-one running against my districts congressman Todd Platts, let alone someone I agree with.

[ARTelevision]

I will be interested in seeking out those from within who do stand in opposition to candidates who seek to inject religion into the political process.

[ARTelevision]

Right, willravel, I see religious thought as a throwback to our earlier experience as a species.

[ShaniFaye]

Art...I would just like to say I agree with you....you've said a lot of things I've been thinking the last two weeks....I am truly ashamed of the republican party right now and it all started when they decided to supeona (sp?) Terri, herself......and everything thats been said/done since then.

Im in quite a quandry

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Right, willravel, I see religious thought as a throwback to our earlier experience as a species.

Excelent! Then we are in total agreement. We are in a similar position. When I started to become disillusioned with republicans, and politics in general, my shift was simply more extreme than yours. Where as you are seeking to fix your party, I left it completly. I still hold on to things like the disagreement with abortion, but I want a smaller government with more local authority and reliance on the individual. I've seen what authoritarian governments can do, and how easily they can be turned from productive societies to crumbling 3rd world hells. America was the first modern test of the libertrian government. Power resting in the hands of the people, not the government. Unfortunatally, this gave way quickly to a democratic republic, then started it's slide back to authoritarian. I want to see what a country can do if it can stay a liberated democracy. That's why I decided to leave the Republicans and join the Libertarians.

[degrawj]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Having no tendency whatsoever toward idealism, I prefer that my candidates are ones with real opportunities for being elected in large enough numbers that they have significant power to effect change.

But you obviously are not happy with the changes they are trying to do, so why would you want to elect people who will disappoint you with their decision making? The problem with third parties is that too many people have this ideal. "Oh, I'll be throwing away my vote, so I'm not going down that path." Vote for what you believe in, not just because you think someone else has a better chance. By not voting with what you believe in, people are just lying to themselves, and in the end they will be unhappy with the choices they have made, like in this situation.

[SecretMethod70]

degrawj, I completely agree with you, but, in the case of art, Libertarianism is not something he believes in.

[host]

My opinion is that everyone who enables the Bush admin. to
remain in office by voting for it's political leaders, is culpable, if not complicit,
in it's alledged crimes. My informed opinion is that the Bush presidency is the most criminal and treasonous in modern times.

Here is a reference to the latest example of it's efforts to elude accountabilty:

<a href="http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00107">http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00107</a>
.................The commission's members were carefully selected by the White House. Commission chairmen Laurence Silberman and Chuck Robb are political, quintessentially, and the rest of the members – with the exception of former deputy CIA director William Studeman -- have little or no intelligence background. If the object was to create a commission that was not going to look too deep, and would pay attention to White House interests, it was well selected. If the object was a serious study of intelligence on proliferation issues, then you could argue that their skills were not well suited for the job........................

I am sorry if you consider this post as an intrusion. Please consider that it is
intended to influence you to reconsider not just the growing religious influence on Republican politics and politicians, but the entire risk to the state of order that you say you seek. You vote for a party that as a matter of policy, is far along on a path that almost completely removes it's leaders from the stricter accountability and oversight that resulted in the impeachments of presidents Nixon and Clinton.

Removing the office of the special prosecutor, holding the advantage of
political majorities in both houses of congress, as welll as control of the executive branch are the reasons that religious influenced government, to the extent experienced last week in the "weekend coup", (the special bill that was rushed through congress and signed by the president, intended "to err on the side of lfe" by compelling the federal court to review a Florida state court judge's final ruling in the Fla. Schiavo family litigation.), could be accomplished.

Are you saying, Art, that you are in favor of the shift in the constitutionally intended checks and balances on political power that emboldened house majority leader Tom Delay to fire the house ethics committee chairman who saw fit to censure him 3 times last year for ehtics violations, or his attempts to amend house rules that require indicted house leaders to relinquixh leadershiip positions until criminal proceedings against them are resolved ?

Art, I don't understand how the the religious component of the Republican party and Republican politics, can be considered seperately, when it is probably the single largest influence on the poltical status quo in Washington. IMO, it is the actions of government that the religious influence is an increasing catalyst for, that alarms you and other secular Republican supporters. Please consider that this is a symptom of a poltical power shift that has resulted in a lack of accountability and oversight that increasingly jeopardizes the very societal stability and control that you say you seek.

IMO, Bush and Tom Delay, are only a special prosecutor statute, and a small
shift in party pluarilty in the next house election, away from being held accountable similarly to Nixon or to Clinton. Political conditions that enable the possibility of investigation and impeachment cannot occur if you keep voting the Republican party political slate, Art. IMO, it is naive to think that
withholding financial support in an effort to protest this religious influence,
while still voting the way you intend to, is more than a token and ineffective protest. Consider voting in a way that will lead in a direction of accountability of your federal elected officials. The intelligence investigation referenced above is the most recent symptom of many, of the white wash that walks hand in hand with the increasingly visible religious influence on political power that you object to.

I see accountability via a shift to a more balanced power sharing structure in our legislative branch as the only remedy for the current destabalizing consolidation of power. We have a 2 party system and one must be pitted against the other if we have any hope of enjoying the full measure of our rights under the constitution, individually and collectively.

Supporting the efforts of one of the 2 major parties to achieve total political control will have nasty consequences. The emerging religious influence that you object to, is only one of many disturbing signs that I observe to be a consequence of near total Republican party control. I fear that much more harm will come from this until enough voters recognize the total impact of one party domination.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by degrawj

But you obviously are not happy with the changes they are trying to do, so why would you want to elect people who will disappoint you with their decision making? The problem with third parties is that too many people have this ideal. "Oh, I'll be throwing away my vote, so I'm not going down that path." Vote for what you believe in, not just because you think someone else has a better chance. By not voting with what you believe in, people are just lying to themselves, and in the end they will be unhappy with the choices they have made, like in this situation.

agree, but at the same time there is practicality.

I don't agree with there decision making 100% of the time, but I do agree with it more than 50% of the time. While the Libertarian party does look attractive, the reality of it is that there is currently a contest where they are not major policy makers nor do they have any track record to follow. I understand that it's a catch 22 but it's also a 1 life time shot meaning that I don't get any takebacks, repeats, or redos. I have to make the most of the opportunities in front of me at the moment.

[ARTelevision]

To put it simply, host, for me the alternatives are far worse.

It's just a personal view.

[Manx]

Of course, the other, oft ignored, alternative is to not vote.

[ARTelevision]

Yes. I respect those who withold their vote. We've discussed this here and opinions differ. IMO, a right includes the right not to exercise it.

[Stompy]

Probably a good thing on your part as your funds make up for such a very very very small piece of the pie that your choice will go unnoticed.

Save yourself a few bucks, that's what I say.

[Lebell]

And here is one reason why I don't advocate a younger voting age.

Here we are, adults with a fair amount of knowledge and reasonable concern over our political process, and we cannot come to a conclusion as to the best course of action.

Go to the libertarians (throw away your vote), refuse to vote (ibid), vote for the lesser of two evils (compromise), etc.

I too have this quandry, ART, as I strongly disapprove of things the Republicans have been doing on the Right to Life front, among other things.

I personally do not think that withholding my vote is an option, however. To me, this is throwing in the towel, as it were, which is akin to giving up. I think a vote for the Greens, American Socialists, Libertarians, etc. is preferable even if ineffectual.

For myself, I have had to weigh the issues in my mind and I will probably continue to favor Republicans while looking carefully at the stance of each politician before making the final decision on who to vote for.

[raveneye]

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to . . . .


Seriously, the key to making a difference is to change people's minds, regardless of what party or label they fall under. Your/my single vote is practically useless; I'm more likely to be struck by lightening while winning the lottery on the way to the polling booth than to change the outcome of an election by my single vote.

But trying change somebody's mind about any political belief is probably completely futile for the vast majority of adults.

The older I get the more convinced I am that political "evolution" is purely a demographic phenomenon. People adopt their core political beliefs early in life and these never change in any fundamental way. The only way for the political scene to change is for demographic cohorts to appear, age, and disappear from the population.

Miami politics for example is dominated by the Cuban immigrant demographic. As long as that demographic dominates, Miami politics won't change.

I don't know what the demographic explanations are for the New Puritanism here in the U.S. But those people are as entrenched and as rigidly unbudging as a razor clam in the bottom of a cold sand hole.

I suppose it is possible for a strong personality to emerge and lead us out of this polarization, or lead all the snakes to the ocean like St. Paddy. But none of the current presidential contenders are even close to being that person, sadly.

[pan6467]

The way I see it, much the way the GOP laughed about how McAuliffe and his goons held hostage my party, the same goes with Rove and his henchmen. I truly believe in 2008, that if you are a GOP'er and believe you have say who your VP will be you are fooling yourself (much the way us Dems fooled ourselves in 2000 and 2004 under McAuliffe).

Rove doesn't want to lose his power, nor will the Religious Right and high powered rich. They will pull out everything they can to hand pick Bush's successor and destroy any potential candidate that may change their power structure.

So as I see it the GOP is in just as bad a shape as the Dems. Both parties have pandered and sold themselves to survive. The party of Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower no longer exists, much the same as the party of JFK and LBJ ceased to exist with Clinton.

What has happened on the GOP's side is they go into the class fight and realized their policies favored the rich (which we can and do argue in other posts, but here it is my opinion... and may not be fact). In order to get votes they had to sell themselves as the "moral and religious party" and thereby allowing the likes of Falwell and Robertson to have too much say. Gone is the progressive conservatism of Goldwater and welcome the social confines and morality of Falwell and Robertson.

The Dems. did the same thing in the early 90's. We sold ourselves to every minority, and played every race, ethnicity and class card we had. In return we became whiners with no bite and the right used our mess against us.

I think within the next few years as the pendulum swings we'll see the left get stronger and stronger and the right weaker. And then the pendulum will swing back.

But this great experiment with getting the religious right to support your party will become a casualty and show itself to be a dreadful and harmful cost to American politics and freedoms.

[meembo]

Originally Posted by pan6467

So as I see it the GOP is in just as bad a shape as the Dems. Both parties have pandered and sold themselves to survive.

I couldn't agree with you more, pan. I think conservative and religious extremists have led and defined Republicans ever since I saw Pat Robertson's RNC speech in 1992. The Schiavo backlash that may just materialze is the first time I've seen a real crack in the party's momentum in a very long time.

[pan6467]

One thing that truly saddens me about this post is that people are so set to vote party lines and not for whom they believe is the best person.

I'm a Dem and a proud Dem, but I voted for Nader in '00, Voted for Voinivich as Senator, and I have campaigned for Republicans.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems in the USA today is people are voting party lines and not for the person.

[Locobot]

A principled stand ART--I am curious if there was an event which triggered you to start donating to the Republicans? Statements like:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I will be interested in seeking out those from within who do stand in opposition to candidates who seek to inject religion into the political process.

seem like anathema to the Republican party.