9
   

What makes people vote Republican?

 
 
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 08:52 am
When reading this article, keep in mind that the current Republican Party has lost most of it's liberal and moderate members. ---BBB

What Makes People Vote Republican?
By Jonathan Haidt, Edge
Posted on September 16, 2008, Printed on September 17, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/98902/

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity" -- a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." But if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle. The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: "disgusts me" (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and "disgusts me less" (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ).

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group -- college students at Penn -- consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like "it's wrong because ... um ... eating dog meat would make you sick" or "it's wrong to use the flag because ... um ... the rags might clog the toilet."

These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups -- the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.") From this study I concluded that the anthropologist Richard Shweder was probably right in a 1987 critique of Turiel in which he claimed that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture. Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see -- let alone respect -- a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

After graduate school I moved to the University of Chicago to work with Shweder, and while there I got a fellowship to do research in India. In September 1993 I traveled to Bhubaneswar, an ancient temple town 200 miles southwest of Calcutta. I brought with me two incompatible identities. On the one hand, I was a 29-year-old liberal atheist who had spent his politically conscious life despising Republican presidents, and I was charged up by the culture wars that intensified in the 1990s. On the other hand, I wanted to be like those tolerant anthropologists I had read so much about.

My first few weeks in Bhubaneswar were therefore filled with feelings of shock and confusion. I dined with men whose wives silently served us and then retreated to the kitchen. My hosts gave me a servant of my own and told me to stop thanking him when he served me. I watched people bathe in and cook with visibly polluted water that was held to be sacred. In short, I was immersed in a sex-segregated, hierarchically stratified, devoutly religious society, and I was committed to understanding it on its own terms, not on mine.

It only took a few weeks for my shock to disappear, not because I was a natural anthropologist but because the normal human capacity for empathy kicked in. I liked these people who were hosting me, helping me, and teaching me. And once I liked them (remember that first principle of moral psychology) it was easy to take their perspective and to consider with an open mind the virtues they thought they were enacting. Rather than automatically rejecting the men as sexist oppressors and pitying the women, children, and servants as helpless victims, I was able to see a moral world in which families, not individuals, are the basic unit of society, and the members of each extended family (including its servants) are intensely interdependent. In this world, equality and personal autonomy were not sacred values. Honoring elders, gods, and guests, and fulfilling one's role-based duties, were more important. Looking at America from this vantage point, what I saw now seemed overly individualistic and self-focused. For example, when I boarded the plane to fly back to Chicago I heard a loud voice saying "Look, you tell him that this is the compartment over MY seat, and I have a RIGHT to use it."

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

On Turiel's definition of morality ("justice, rights, and welfare"), Christian and Hindu communities don't look good. They restrict people's rights (especially sexual rights), encourage hierarchy and conformity to gender roles, and make people spend extraordinary amounts of time in prayer and ritual practices that seem to have nothing to do with "real" morality. But isn't it unfair to impose on all cultures a definition of morality drawn from the European Enlightenment tradition? Might we do better with an approach that defines moral systems by what they do rather than by what they value?

Here's my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. It turns out that human societies have found several radically different approaches to suppressing selfishness, two of which are most relevant for understanding what Democrats don't understand about morality.

First, imagine society as a social contract invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please. The patron saint of a contractual society is John Stuart Mill, who wrote (in On Liberty) that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Mill's vision appeals to many liberals and libertarians; a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.

Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity.

But now imagine society not as an agreement among individuals but as something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free-riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups. The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy. The patron saint of this more binding moral system is the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who warned of the dangers of anomie (normlessness), and wrote, in 1897, that "Man cannot become attached to higher aims and submit to a rule if he sees nothing above him to which he belongs. To free himself from all social pressure is to abandon himself and demoralize him." A Durkheimian society at its best would be a stable network composed of many nested and overlapping groups that socialize, reshape, and care for individuals who, if left to their own devices, would pursue shallow, carnal, and selfish pleasures. A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one's groups over concerns for outgroups.

A Durkheimian ethos can't be supported by the two moral foundations that hold up a Millian society (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). My recent research shows that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble). These three systems support moralities that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals. Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest.

In several large Internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.

In The Political Brain, Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military. The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane -- of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don't understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping.

Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group. Durkheim long ago said that God is really society projected up into the heavens, a collective delusion that enables collectives to exist, suppress selfishness, and endure. The three Durkheimian foundations (ingroup, authority, and purity) play a crucial role in most religions. When they are banished entirely from political life, what remains is a nation of individuals striving to maximize utility while respecting the rules. What remains is a cold but fair social contract, which can easily degenerate into a nation of shoppers.

The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words "God" and "faith." But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns. God is useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a collection of individuals -- each with a panoply of rights--but as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum ("from many, one"). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the sacredness gap.

A useful heuristic would be to think about each issue, and about the Party itself, from the perspective of the three Durkheimian foundations. Might the Democrats expand their moral range without betraying their principles? Might they even find ways to improve their policies by incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights?

The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that "we are all one" is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being. A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

The purity/sanctity foundation is used heavily by the Christian right to condemn hedonism and sexual "deviance," but it can also be harnessed for progressive causes. Sanctity does not have to come from God; the psychology of this system is about overcoming our lower, grasping, carnal selves in order to live in a way that is higher, nobler, and more spiritual. Many liberals criticize the crassness and ugliness that our unrestrained free-market society has created. There is a long tradition of liberal anti-materialism often linked to a reverence for nature. Environmental and animal welfare issues are easily promoted using the language of harm/care, but such appeals might be more effective when supplemented with hints of purity/sanctity.

The authority/respect foundation will be the hardest for Democrats to use. But even as liberal bumper stickers urge us to "question authority" and assert that "dissent is patriotic," Democrats can ask what needs this foundation serves, and then look for other ways to meet them. The authority foundation is all about maintaining social order, so any candidate seen to be "soft on crime" has disqualified himself, for many Americans, from being entrusted with the ultimate authority. Democrats would do well to read Durkheim and think about the quasi-religious importance of the criminal justice system. The miracle of turning individuals into groups can only be performed by groups that impose costs on cheaters and slackers. You can do this the authoritarian way (with strict rules and harsh penalties) or you can do it using the fairness/reciprocity foundation by stressing personal responsibility and the beneficence of the nation towards those who "work hard and play by the rules." But if you don't do it at all -- if you seem to tolerate or enable cheaters and slackers -- then you are committing a kind of sacrilege.

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.
----------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Haidt is an associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Virginia.
 
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 09:12 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
A big reason is the Demonrat's party platform:

Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 Jul 10, 2004

Strengthen gun control to reduce violence
Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.

cj's note: If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 09:19 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Very interesting. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 09:57 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Intelligence. Why?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:00 am
@cjhsa,
I join in cj 's observations





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  4  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:10 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
What makes people vote Republican?

I do so in my effort to oppose and defeat liberalism, collectivism,
authoritarianism, forced disarmament of future victims of crime and political correctness.

I vote Republican in my effort to promote Conservative Originalism,
personal freedom, Individualism, libertarianism, hedonism and laissez faire free enterprize.





David
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:17 am
@cjhsa,
Quote:
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime

So.. does this mean you don't think American's should have Second Amendment rights and you want the criminals and terrorists to have guns?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:25 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You support the Republican party because they support hedonism?

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:36 am
@parados,
Quote:

does this mean you don't think American's should have Second Amendment rights
and you want the criminals and terrorists to have guns?

As a matter of practical reality:
the same as thay will have marijuana if thay choose to,
so also thay will have guns, regardless of any laws.

Prohibitions are ineffective, a sad joke, except as to those folks
who voluntarily support prohibitions.

We learned that clearly enuf during the 1920s Prohibition on alcohol.

The only way to achieve the goal that u have implied
is to deprive the persona non grata of access to the decent people
either by confinement in maximum security prisons,
or, less expensively,
by BANISHING them from the North American Continent;
(think olde English Botany Bay Colony, behind 1000s of miles of water),
with the death penalty applicable to violation of the banishment.

Gun control does not work, but
criminal control will work.


Forget the guns: get rid of the criminals.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:37 am
@ebrown p,
Ideally, thay support the freedom which is the foundation of hedonism, yes





David
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 12:46 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Actually, it's comments like below that lead me to believe that Democrats perceive themselves as superior to the average American and consistently persuade themselves that only the stupidity and unenlightenment of the American voter cause them to vote Republican consistently:

Quote:
Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies?
...conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity" -- a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate.
...Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.


However, Haidt does bring up an interesting perspective that would do many Democrats good to heed, for example:

Quote:
Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats.

Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist."


From my perspective I reject that a utopia can ever be created based on human will alone. People aren't made that way. Our competetive nature and selfishness will always result in some person being trampled under our feet. I think the liberal feels that a utopia can be created...given sufficient government oversight and assistance coupled with the nascent goodness of everybody i.e., a caring society with complete unfettered freedom to do what you want, that will never conflict with another because the other is socially equal, financially equal and equally tolerant.

In contrast, I (and most other social conservatives, I daresay) think laws and our moral code serve to confine our ever present evil nature. Given the unrestricted freedoms that Haidt and liberals typically espouse, society will devolve into chaos, immorality, and anarchy. This is amply proven by the decay of the family structure, material greed, abortion on demand, and sexual decadence that American society has fallen into over the past few decades since moral relativism became dominant in the US.

People vote Republican because they fundamentally disagree with the liberal and (from our perspective) immoral positions taken by the Democratic Party. Similarly folks vote Democrat because they fundamentally disagree with (seen from their perspective) the puritancial and repressed positions taken by the Republican Party.

I really don't think any of this is new. Haidt brings up some good theoretical strategies that, if imposed by Democrats, could cause a few folks to lean Democrat, but at the same time, he completely misunderstands, underestimates and frankly, continues to insult the deeply held moral beliefs of most of American society. Therefore, I think intellectual but morally bankrupt analyses like this will only serve to drive more folks to the Republican tent than to the Democratic.


0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 12:50 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
What makes people vote Republican?

Fear, mostly. That and addiction to prescription pain killers.
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 06:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
"I think there are several different factors that contribute to trends in American politics, and that Republicans are very adept at manipulating those factors in their favor. In his book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, Public Affairs,Drew Westen suggests that emotions rule over logic in American Politics. The party that can press the most emotional buttons, according to Westen’s theory, will win the most elections. Republicans have long ruled supreme at trotting out images of religion, flag, patriotism, mom and apple pie over the years, to the point of making those images part of the Republican brand.

We have come to associate Patriotism and Godliness with the Republican Party even though there is little empirical evidence to suggest the party as a whole is either, and much to suggest it isn’t.

http://tazlines.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/why-do-american%e2%80%99s-vote-for-dopes/
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 06:47 pm
the reasons that i used to vote republican when i was younger ...

* back then, the republican party was good with the money and stayed out of people's personal lives for the most part.

* when the gop decided during the the reagan presidency to throw both of those ideas out, i got disillusioned.

* when the gop ran bush sr and the bumbling quayle, i got pissed. i expected that my vote for dukakis would be a protest vote. but bush sr's presidency was such a disaster (excepting his handling of gulf I) that when clinton came along, i threw in my gop towel.

* the only republican i've voted for in any office higher than mayor since then is ahnoldt. but then ahnoldt isn't exactly a standard issue republican, is he ?

so then what does make people continue to vote republican?

i honestly can't think of one good reason...

OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:19 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
so then what does make people continue to vote republican?

i honestly can't think of one good reason...

Thay r not as intrusive or oppressive as the Democrats.
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You are wrong sir.
The non-americans like me think that USA is a boring country when you think of democracy and election.
Because in USA either you have to sip contaminated water or gutter( sewage) water.
A siple third choice in USA to quench your political thirst is not there.
Rama
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:59 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Quote:
You are wrong sir.
The non-americans like me
think that USA is a boring country
when you think of democracy and election.

Surely u know that Americans like me hold u in contempt
and have no interest in WHAT u think; ESPECIALLY not communists like u, or nazis.
We run our country to satisfy OURSELVES, not aliens.

Quote:
Because in USA either you have to sip contaminated water
or gutter( sewage) water.

I attribute this statement to delusive sickness of the nightmares
in your communist mind, perhaps resulting from your advanced old age.

In 1984, I visited India, and I saw that thay actually DO use
filthy water. That is never the case in America. I assure u of that.
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 11:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Come on sir keep cool and be not cold.
There are only two corporate controlled parties to occupy the WH where as both india( my birth country) and in Germany( my adopted one has more than two parties to rule/ ruin the country.
You complain about communists( which are despicable in your country) and use nazi( whose tactics are being followed without shame and remorse.
If your country mind its own business none will care about its existense.
But if that country preach pious sermons and behave like a drunkard it is our business to expose.
I have a lot of american friends here in Köln and in USA.
None had used this kind of epithets soacked with venom and intollerance like your above reactions.
The following quote is a reptetion to proove my critical views.

"After years and years of bombardment from the mainstream media, much of the American populace has been dumbed-down and programmed to ignore the substance, realities and the issues of the world around them; and instead focus on the peripheral, pointless and more often than not, irrelevant sideshows created by a news media full of hucksters, corporate bootlickers and suck-ups.

America has become a circus and a nation of voyeurs and peeping Toms. It is slowly devolving into a mindless freakshow that millions of simpletons watch every night on their TV’s. As for politics, it seems that far too many Americans don’t even care who wins anymore, just as long as they have nice hair, wear a flag pin on their lapel and believe god is American.

As a result, the American people still believe that they are the good guys. They still view themselves as the cavalry and the liberators but, they are in fact, viewed by many nations as the hostile invaders, the belligerent occupiers and that which must be resisted.

http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com/
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:12 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
What makes people vote Republican?


THE LIBERAL ANSWER:

1) Utter ignorance
2) A sense of the superiority of the white race
3) Greed
4) Bloodlust
5) Religious fanaticism


THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER:

1) Confidence in the reliability of tradition
2) A belief that government should serve not control its citizens
3) A profound affinity for personal accountability.
4) An appreciation of the life's reality - both positive and negative
5) The Republican Party for all its faults remains closer to the ideals expressed in 1-4 than the Democrats

As to why idiots vote Republican or Democrat? Who cares? They're idiots.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
What makes people vote Republican?


THE LIBERAL ANSWER:

1) Utter ignorance
2) A sense of the superiority of the white race
3) Greed
4) Bloodlust
5) Religious fanaticism


THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER:

1) Confidence in the reliability of tradition
2) A belief that government should serve not control its citizens
3) A profound affinity for personal accountability.
4) An appreciation of the life's reality - both positive and negative
5) The Republican Party for all its faults remains closer to the ideals expressed in 1-4 than the Democrats

As to why idiots vote Republican or Democrat? Who cares? They're idiots.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
The 2008 Republican Convention... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Another Republican Scum-Bag - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Republican Moron Jim DeMint - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Silly, Stupid Republican! - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans hate the working class - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans Dumb and Dumber - Discussion by BigEgo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What makes people vote Republican?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 08:36:39