Is the GOP Geared Toward the Basest Human Instincts?

[Ryan O'Dine]

My perception of the GOP is that it wins the bulk of its votes by appealing to the lowest of human impulses. Namely...

1. Fear (terrorism, immigration)

2. Greed (taxes)

3. Superstition (religion -- gay marriage, abortion)

It seems to me the Democrats, right or wrong, aim higher (group responsibility -- minimum wage, universal healthcare; corporate responsibility -- industrial regulation, consumer protection, unions; science -- environmentalism, stem cell research, etc.).

I know this OP is provoking, and that I’m “framing” the question in a biased manner, but the question itself (and my wish to understand my own bias) is sincere. Does the Republican Party sell itself primarily by appealing to the worst in human nature?

 

[Phaedrus74]

No, they are not appealing to the basest of all human drives:

S*x

 

[Beerina]

I find it interesting that you find fault with finding fault with taxes. That people are greedy if they don't want their money taken and given to other people.

The presumption is that taxation and spending are driven by some kind of worthwhile process, rather than an evolutionary process of meme construction, where the power hungry whip up long strings of hot air about how good their ideas are, then they win elections based on it. The most valuable streams of words, to the idiot masses, win, and thus reproduce.

And if any political position is based on greed, it's those who say, "look at what those guys have. Elect me, and I'll beat them on the head and give it to you and your lives will be better -- I promise!"

 

[Phaedrus74]

Isn't that envy?

 

[Matt the Poet]

As far as I can see, the right-wing position is actually born of logic – a horrifying, chilly form of logic, but a valid one nonetheless. It is probably good for a functioning society if the majority of its members shut up, work hard, do as they are told and breed the next generation of said society to do the same. The ones who won’t, or can’t do this are kept weak enough to prevent them from making any serious challenge on the system, while the clever, energetic or just plain lucky get perks to encourage them not to rock the boat. Appeals to fear, greed, blind faith etc. appear to be the most efficient (and ugliest) method of making sure that this occurs.

The liberal position seems noble, but doubtful. It’s clearly much, much better for a functioning society that everyone is in a position where they can contribute valuably to its functioning regardless of economic, social or intellectual status, but getting there is terribly hard and relies on people giving in to their better natures most of the time, and pulling together to help people they will never meet. There is little evidence that this happens a great deal.

It’s a conundrum for me. I’m (sort of) as liberal as they come, but aware that my only and ultimate argument against Conservatism is that its central tenets, while arguably valid, are utterly disgusting. I feel I should be able to come up with something better…

 

[TragicMonkey]

And if any political position is based on greed, it's those who say, "look at what those guys have. Elect me, and I'll beat them on the head and give it to you and your lives will be better -- I promise!"

So, is there ever a time when one can point out someone's gains are ill-gotten, without being subject to this criticism?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I find it interesting that you find fault with finding fault with taxes. That people are greedy if they don't want their money taken and given to other people.

I've got molasses brain today -- not sure I follow your post. The liberal view, as I understand it, is that taxes are (or should be) taken from those who have, and redistributed to those who need (or to society in general). This is, at least in principle, altruistic.

The conservative view is that taxes should be minimal. Those who earn it should get to keep it. Those who don’t need to try harder. Maybe “greed” is the wrong word here, but I can’t think of a better one.

It is probably good for a functioning society if the majority of its members shut up, work hard, do as they are told and breed the next generation of said society to do the same.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I’m not sure I agree with this one excerpt. It sounds more like communism. Is this really a good description of the aims of the GOP?

 

[ravdin]

So, is there ever a time when one can point out someone's gains are ill-gotten, without being subject to this criticism?

Of course. But blind trust in the government to tax us as much as they see fit, and refusing to demand accountability for how the money is spent, is as base an instinct as anything I know of: abject submission to authority.

 

[firecoins]

The conservative view is that taxes should be minimal. Those who earn it should get to keep it. Those who don’t need to try harder. Maybe “greed” is the wrong word here, but I can’t think of a better one.

The conservative view is that its YOUR money being taken away. Its money that can be spent, saved or invested. Those 3 actions improve the economy br creating jobs and money to loan out for new homes and businesses.

Also the government should be held accountable for how it spends your money.

 

[Tricky]

Both parties operate out of enlightened self-interest. The GOP just likes dimmer light.

 

[Oliver]

My perception of the GOP is that it wins the bulk of its votes by appealing to the lowest of human impulses. Namely...

1. Fear (terrorism, immigration)

2. Greed (taxes)

3. Superstition (religion -- gay marriage, abortion)

It seems to me the Democrats, right or wrong, aim higher (group responsibility -- minimum wage, universal healthcare; corporate responsibility -- industrial regulation, consumer protection, unions; science -- environmentalism, stem cell research, etc.).

I know this OP is provoking, and that I’m “framing” the question in a biased manner, but the question itself (and my wish to understand my own bias) is sincere. Does the Republican Party sell itself primarily by appealing to the worst in human nature?

I have the same impression about US-elections. I don't fully
understand why Americans vote in such a naive way - but
the source may be the differing education levels throughout
the country, government paranoia, a misleading media etc...

 

[JoeEllison]

As far as I can see, the right-wing position is actually born of logic – a horrifying, chilly form of logic, but a valid one nonetheless. It is probably good for a functioning society if the majority of its members shut up, work hard, do as they are told and breed the next generation of said society to do the same. The ones who won’t, or can’t do this are kept weak enough to prevent them from making any serious challenge on the system, while the clever, energetic or just plain lucky get perks to encourage them not to rock the boat. Appeals to fear, greed, blind faith etc. appear to be the most efficient (and ugliest) method of making sure that this occurs.

The liberal position seems noble, but doubtful. It’s clearly much, much better for a functioning society that everyone is in a position where they can contribute valuably to its functioning regardless of economic, social or intellectual status, but getting there is terribly hard and relies on people giving in to their better natures most of the time, and pulling together to help people they will never meet. There is little evidence that this happens a great deal.

It’s a conundrum for me. I’m (sort of) as liberal as they come, but aware that my only and ultimate argument against Conservatism is that its central tenets, while arguably valid, are utterly disgusting. I feel I should be able to come up with something better…

The thing is, you can either be progressive or regressive. The Republicans are regressive(when they aren't being radical), and the Democrats are progressive(when they aren't being conservative.) The Republican strategy seems to be about creating and maintaining a stats quo which is generally negative for most people, but is also relatively stable. The Democrats seem to at least in principle promote progress and a better outcome for everyone, but that will by necessity shake up the status quo.

 

[firecoins]

So, is there ever a time when one can point out someone's gains are ill-gotten, without being subject to this criticism?

Politicians talk in such general terms. Millions of people have to be stealing for that to be remotely true. Politicans don't back this up with evidence.

Lots of rich people make more money than you. They aren't paying their fair share. Lets tax them!

Politicians never define who is rich and what the fair share of rich people should be versus what they pay now in taxes.

 

[Fnord]

Both parties operate out of enlightened self-interest. The GOP just likes dimmer light.

Pro-FOUND!!! This should be someone's tagline.


Fiscal Conservative: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the money he has earned is his, and that only he should decide how to spend, save, or invest it.

Fiscal Liberal: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that someone who does nothing to earn a living wage should be given one anyway.

Social Conservative: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the Rule Of Law applies to everyone else, everywhere else, and all of the time except now.

Social Liberal: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the Rule Of Law does not apply to them, as it is an oppressive and discriminatory concept.

 

[GreNME]

I find it interesting that you find fault with finding fault with taxes. That people are greedy if they don't want their money taken and given to other people.

I have a hard time parsing that in relation to the high level of religiosity in the GOP. Seems to me like they might not want the money taken and given to other people, but it's a good idea to make sure you give your ten percent to the church every weekend. How is tithing not like taxes again?

The presumption is that taxation and spending are driven by some kind of worthwhile process, rather than an evolutionary process of meme construction, where the power hungry whip up long strings of hot air about how good their ideas are, then they win elections based on it. The most valuable streams of words, to the idiot masses, win, and thus reproduce.

And if any political position is based on greed, it's those who say, "look at what those guys have. Elect me, and I'll beat them on the head and give it to you and your lives will be better -- I promise!"

All very good reasoning... right up until you become someone who needs help and no one but the government is willing to give you that help.

I'll agree with you on the extremes, but the reality is that most people don't fall into the realm of the extremes. That's a politician fantasy or the construct of philosophy debate hypotheticals.

 

[ravdin]

I have a hard time parsing that in relation to the high level of religiosity in the GOP. Seems to me like they might not want the money taken and given to other people, but it's a good idea to make sure you give your ten percent to the church every weekend. How is tithing not like taxes again?

Tithing, unlike taxes, is 100% voluntary.

 

[Trakar]

My perception of the GOP is that it wins the bulk of its votes by appealing to the lowest of human impulses. Namely...

1. Fear (terrorism, immigration)

2. Greed (taxes)

3. Superstition (religion -- gay marriage, abortion)

It seems to me the Democrats, right or wrong, aim higher (group responsibility -- minimum wage, universal healthcare; corporate responsibility -- industrial regulation, consumer protection, unions; science -- environmentalism, stem cell research, etc.).

Well, the question shouldn't revolve around the "selling," but around the consideration of the actualities of their stated goals, rationales and methods.

It should also be acknowledged that there are few, if any, "purists" in either party and plenty of those who game the system from both sides for personal gain.

 

[JoeEllison]

Pro-FOUND!!! This should be someone's tagline.


Fiscal Conservative: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the money he has earned is his, and that only he should decide how to spend, save, or invest it.

Fiscal Liberal: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that someone who does nothing to earn a living wage should be given one anyway.

Social Conservative: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the Rule Of Law applies to everyone else, everywhere else, and all of the time except now.

Social Liberal: Someone who operates under the mistaken belief that the Rule Of Law does not apply to them, as it is an oppressive and discriminatory concept.

This shows an incredible lack of understanding of reality. Wow.

 

[Matt the Poet]

I’m not sure I agree with this one excerpt. It sounds more like communism. Is this really a good description of the aims of the GOP?

Depends what you mean by 'communism'. I'd prefer to talk about 'authoritarianism' because it internationalises the debate. The GOPers of the sort you seem to be talking about (and there are, doubtless, others but they seem to be rather quiet at the moment), are to my mind merely the current US incarnation of the authoritarian viewpoint as I've articulated, just as Stalinists were their horrifyingly successful counterparts in the Eastern Bloc

I'm not saying that Bush is the same as Stalin, mind you, so extinguish any flames you may have been readying after that first paragraph. Authoritarianism is a more pleasant deal in capitalist economies, because you have things like greed, desire and entertainment available as coercive tools. These are better than fear - people tend not to mind being suppressed as long as they can have a nice lunch and there's something good on the telly.

 

[Fnord]

This shows an incredible lack of understanding of reality. Wow.

I think you failed to notice the sarcastic tone of my voice.

I know they're not correct (expecially to a Linertarian), but they work when explaining such concepts to the ... uh ... "educationally challenged" individuals who think their favourite candidate invented fire, the wheel, penicillen, AND the Internet!