Is the true agenda of the republican party the recreation of an aristocracy?

Question

If so does a working class republican make about as much sence as a Jewish nazi or a black clansman?

Answer 1

The Republican Party has acquired the same attitude most right wing political groups throughout recent history. The Nazi Socialist Party of Pre-war Germany, The right wing fascists of Italy and South America all expressed the jingoistic rhetoric so familiar to the "Family Values" the Republicans have pushed their agenda with for the last six years. They firmly believe that they know what is best for the rest of the people of their country and even the world. They do not try to take into account the knowledge of others, particularly educated people who make it their careers to know these things. They are so convinced that they know what the people need that they will not, and do not take the opinions of others into account, regardless of the expertise of these "other" people. If that is not the earmark of an aristocracy then what is. No matter what you call it, these people have pushed their agenda on the rest of us so often and for so long that it is a fearful thing to see them gain power again, because they will once again try to impose their twisted outlook onto the political scene and drive this country into another effort to resist change. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl some of the early archetects of the the Republican Neo-Conservative movement expressed that they needed an incident similar to Pearl Harbor (therefore, the 9/11 incident ) to give us the opportunity to bring the Country (USA) in the direction we want it to go. They wrote that 16 yeaars before 9/11. The definition of Time is "the measure of change." Change is inevitable in the nature of things. To fight it is futile. The dinosaurs, and 99% of all species that have ever existed have passed from the reality of existence because they could not adapt. Man is not exempt from that equastion. Liberalism is simply an expression that all the answers are not known. Therefore, trying to adapt to the changing political environment.is imperative, and trying to understand new aspects of the worlds' behavior is a constant part of a politician's responsibility. Failure is an option, it is always an option in politics. learning from failure is a large part of life itself. We must be willing to look for our answers among the peoples of the world. It might not be the best solution for us at this time but it might be the best when looked at in the context of the whole world. We are 5% of the population of the world using 30% of its resouses, how long can that last?.Instead we find the arrogance of the aristioracy constantly trying to halt the march of the political fortunes of the world and force it into its own perception of what is to be. This has driven us to enter into war with Iraq.with an ending that is nothing less then the outcome of the Viet Nam conflict. Total failure! They have not learned even the simplist lessons that cost us the lives of 58,219 of America's finest. Talk to those brave men and women and ask them if the current Republicans are not an aristocrocy.

Answer 2

I personally think the whole thing boils down to collectivism versus individualism. The Democratic party looks at everything from a collective or "big happy family" outlook, and the Republican party looks at everything from an individual freedom outlook, with the most important freedom being what happens to one's own hard earned cash. There are many exceptions to this on both sides of the aisle, but this is the major dividing line. So a working class Republican does make sense, if the person believes in low taxation and reduced government regulation. On the other hand, if a working class person feels that high taxation and cradle to grave government funding and government supervision of every aspect of one's life is preferable, then the Democratic party makes more sense. I have friends on both sides. Most Democrats that I know look to the European social democracies as the goal to which they aspire, and this is not such a bad life, but me, I still cherish my freedoms.

Answer 3

you're complicated Republicans with Democrats and Socialists. Republicans believe which you'll be unfastened to stay your individual life and make your individual judgements. Republicans are the main charitable human beings available. On appropriate of the severe quantity of money the government steals to create their very own charity circumstances, conservatives nonetheless provide quite some money to non-public charities that particularly help human beings as a substitute of enslaving them. Why not seem to international places that have greater government administration of their voters and see how astonishing their lives are? we don't would desire to purpose it right here. this is been tried, and it would not artwork. Capitalism works everywhere it has ever been tried. the only mess united stateshappen while the government sticks this is arms into the gadget. .

Answer 4

The true agenda of the republican party is to defend wealth and power. They represent the employers and the dems represent the employees, for the most part. The are obsessed with keeping the power and not allowing government to gain representation for the masses. This would limit their control of the population. They hate any government program that gets in the way of their control.

Answer 5

I think the word would be oligarchy or nepotism. Who needs a King when you own everything and everyone in power is part of the money club?

You may want to read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas." He does a great analysis of your secondary question.

In terms of an Aristocracy or power by lineage, both parties have large numbers of aristocrats. Bush is the most obvious example right now, but Gore's father was a also senator, Hillary ascended to her position largely as Bill Clinton's wife, Elizabeth Dole did the same. Shaddeg in Arizona is the heir to his father's seat. Jean Carnahan literally inherited her husband's seat after he died. Daley in Chicago ran on his father's name. George Miller of California. Of course anyone in politics with the name Kennedy. These are the ones I can think of without any research.

It is something people on both sides of the ideological aisle should really think about deeply. I doubt liberals or conservatives really want their government run by what amounts to a royal family - but I don't think we really consider that when we go to the polls.

We should also think about affirmative action in college admissions for the sons and daughters of alumni as a form of aristocratic privilege. We freak out at the thought of an under qualified black kid getting in at the expense of qualified white kid, but we don't really talk about under qualified rich kids getting in at the expense of qualified poor or middle class kids.

That kind of discrimination probably does more harm to the idea of a meritocracy than any race based admission policy. At least the race based policy is a (possibly ill conceived) effort to right past wrongs. But I cannot imagine why a rich dunce deserves special consideration to get into an ivy league school simply because his daddy went there.

Answer 6

in the last 10 years, more billionaires and millionaires have been created than in any other era. although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does seem that the present policies are focused on protecting the wealth of the most powerful among us (or segregated from us). The values of the middle class working person is not a priority...The Republican doctrine of protecting the wealth of the rich to (supposedly) build new factories and yachts is a valid concept, but it is not the only piece of the economic puzzle. As a working man, I will support measures aimed to protect my class until I see evidence that the richest are in someway in crisis.

Answer 7

I work hard to provide for my family and yours. I would like to think maybe you'd be a little appreciative in the process. Dems always have wanted everyone to live at the expense of someone else. But we all cant marry ketchup Heiress's. So I go to work and pay for your medicare and your Medicaid. The fact that top 5% wage earners in this country pay for 35% of the entire federal budget should mean something. So instead of beating them down and telling them How much you despise them maybe you should say thanks. Thanks for building a school for my kids, thanks for putting them through college, thanks for giving them a job. I don't know about you but I don't work for a poor man. I think the Republican are trying to make Americans responsible for them selves. Government is supposed to protect us and our rights not run our lives and feed us like our parents.

If you call a society that takes responsibilities for its own actions and takes care of its own family and doesn't milk the system an aristocracy, then yes. If you mean a class of uber wealthy social elites that philosophize all day then maybe you should look at the democrats...

Answer 8

As long as the opposition can only come up with government intrusion as a "solution," voting Republican makes perfect sense.

I would rather be poor and free.

Oh, and dimes to dollars, pick the Republicans from the Democrats. It cannot be done. Might look at the hypocrisy of the liberal elite.

Answer 9

The true agenda of the Republican party is to allow business to operate generating more revenue for citizens and the government. The agenda is for equal opportunity. The Democrat agenda is to appease, tolerate, and provide equal outcomes (no matter what the effort).

Answer 10

pretty much but you would have a hard time convinceing them of that. They are for the rich yet the poorest Americans usually vote for them. Probably because the poorest Americans are the least educated.