Fourteen Days to Go: Republicans

I am not a fan of Republicans. I said yesterday, Democrats view individuals as the collective. Republicans dehumanize on the same scale by saying individuals are customers.

These are the Republicans I can tolerate. The George Will Republicans. These are the Republicans who think the government is a customer. I like free enterprise, but people are more than customers. These Republicans, the ones I can tolerate, support the military industrial complex, infrastructure contractors, contractors who think the buildings of a university are more important than teachers and want to cut medicare so government can buy more manufacturing products.

These Republicans see people as customers and also as employees. Employees who screw up prices because of wages and benefits. Republicans who complain that half the price of a car is employee benefits.

People are more than Customers and/or Employees/Operating-Costs.

The Republicans I hate are the Moral Majority types. Types like Richard Murdock who thinks pregnancy from rape is the will of God. What: CNN. Look, I’m a religious guy, but the hell is wrong with this guy? The close-minded nature of Republicans who use coercion to control morality. Morality they disagree with. Anti-abortion types who after stopping the abortion then do nothing to be sure those kids can grow up to be secure through the social safety net.

These are the hypocrite-Republicans. I dislike these guys more than any Democrat except for the Democrats who hate religion.

Republicans need to humanize their feelings about people who don’t have the money they have. Republicans need to spurn the Moral Majority. If Republicans can be fiscal-conservatives, not demanding the government buy good over helping people, and then can be socially-moderate to socially-liberal, then they will represent the current citizens of the country.


4 thoughts on “Fourteen Days to Go: Republicans

  1. Why do we have to always help people??? Oh ya that’s right, I claim to be a Republican! I say if someone is working hard then they deserve help if they need it. 🙂 I am all for helping people that experience natural catastrophes or are disabled and have no family. I like welfare but as long as someone is working for it if they are physically able. Why do I need to humanize my feelings about people who don’t have the money I have? I am not talking about the disabled in this question. Most people who have money work extremely hard for it. I see nothing wrong with that. There are a few who have been given an inheritance. I think your last paragraph is too generalized and absolute. My question is why do some people think that people who work hard and make a lot of money should “humanize their feelings” towards those that don’t work hard and are physically able to.

    • Oh goodness, this is going to go long. “Humanize their feelings” is a clumsy statement. I am glad you called me out. My response is going to be long (903 words), but I don’t apologize for length. Breadth is important.

      I think the general assumption about helping people is: “The money might be going to someone who is capable of getting it themselves.”

      I agree, but differently.

      First: I am too vague in the above post. Typing quickly after drawing for hours does that too me. I suppose in this post and the one about Democrats, I should say “I am not a fan of the dehumanization inherent in the general Republican/Democratic political philosophy about individuals.” I also make the assumption that since I rarely affiliate with political or social/moral labels, others do not either. It’s just too reductionist and over-simplified and I always want to assume the best about people. When I say, “Republicans” and “Democrats”, I mean the political organizations in general.

      Second: Labels cause problems. They are dehumanizing. No one is as simple as the demographers would have us be: male, single, Caucasian, veteran, unaffiliated. No one is simply their gender, marital-status, race, military-status and political affiliation. I have a friend on Facebook who is a Libertarian in every sense of the word . . . according to him. I still refuse to call him a Libertarian, because for me it is just insulting and self-dehumanizing. So Nicole, I would never call you a Republican. That would be an insult, in my opinion. That would be dehumanizing, in my opinion. You are obviously far more complicated (in a good way) than simply Republican.

      Thank goodness.

      Third: When I say “humanize.” I mean to discontinue the practice of applying labels to others. I’ve told you I considered grad school. My research topic would be taxonomy from the perspective of rhetoric, not biology or life-sciences. Taxonomy is the organization of all living organisms into categories. If used as a tool, taxonomy is harmless. Unfortunately, demographers, the bastard, social-science children of hard-scientists, taxonomize society by organizing individuals into similar rigid structures used by biologists to organize nature. I find this fascinating and simultaneously abominable. In my opinion, to be human means to be complicated with thousands of labels. By recognizing this and adopting this into their general philosophy, political parties and other organizations would humanize themselves.

      Finally: By humanizing away from Republican demographic tools like “customer” and “employee”, I am not saying I like income-redistribution. Yes, we must have a safety net. Yes, the elderly and disabled must be cared for. Yes, solutions, not money, must be made available to the chronically poor (meaning education, training, job-hunting assistance etc.). Part of the problem when the economy crashed is certain companies were constantly hiring–fast-food, entry-level retail and call-centers–but no one wants to work for them other than teenagers who can not now find work because some middle-aged college grads, single-moms and men with families and mortgages did swallow their pride, ignored the demeaning social connotations inherent in those types of employers and found work there.

      Mitt Romney, as a business person, has identified one of the key problems with products produced in the United States: the employees and employee benefits. He does so in the 2008 New York Times Op-Ed piece President Obama misquoted in the third debate. Romney says, “First, [American Auto Makers’] huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.” Romney is not mean-spirited in this description even though millions of people (notably Democrats and organized labor) were insulted by what he said here. Romney defined the problem with American cars as the high cost of “labor agreements” and “retiree benefits.” To summarize: American workers and their expensive benefits cost too damn much. This is the classic application of Republican demographic tools.

      Romney does not say fire the workers. Romney does not say push Automakers into insolvency. Romney was advocating an approach to the Auto bailout that was not pro-union. Romney also wanted to fire every member of senior management for management Mal-practice. Many people found Romney’s ideas demeaning and dehumanizing. I agree with Romney, but I agree with his critics, and I disagree with both as well.

      I personally believe the one factor that drove high unemployment for so long after the housing bust and subsequent recession were the long-term unemployment benefits President Obama signed into law. The President did so because unemployment benefits force people to rely on the bureaucracy, to join the unemployed collective and to re-realize interest in labor unions. This is the dehumanizing behavior of Democrats and their demographic tools. In other words: income redistribution is the classic application of Democratic demographic tools.

      Okay. Calling people names is dehumanizing. Attacking people’s jobs and benefits is dehumanizing. Giving people who can work money instead of solutions, especially when there are jobs, is dehumanizing.

      “Humanize their feelings” is a clumsy statement. I am glad you called me out. The explanation is too long. I should have said “humanize their language and demographic sensibilities.”

      ps. The link to the Op-Ed is:

      • I think you could have said “Some Republicans should humanize their language and demographic sensibilities.” It is the absolute statement that turns my brain off. I deeply appreciate your second to the last paragraph. Bravo for such a thoughtful response!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s