Why does a person become Republican?

Sean Quinn of fivethirtyeight doesn’t really offer an answer, but a rather good story on the idiocy bred by bureaucracies.

There’s a subtle warning in that story. In the US, there’s been 30 years of banging the ‘the gov’t is the problem’ drum, and little incentive for the most talented people to go into gov’t work. As Obama looks to reinvigorate gov’t service, bureaucratic culture and inertia may be as great, if not greater, barriers to success as Republican opposition.

People who become conservatives do so because they believe that most people in the world are as mean-spirited, dishonest, greedy, untrustworthy and warlike as they are.

People who become liberals do so because they believe that most people in the world are as kind, honest, generous, trustworthy and peace-loving as they are.

So do Americans who believe neither (surely the majority?) go unrepresented?

guns
God
gays
greed
(g)ingoism

Pretty petty responses so far.
I am reading the piece…no comment on it at this time; but it did bring to mind an article I read a year or so ago that is relevant.
I recommend reading both.

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
[i]"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."[/i]

If one would like to further examine this area I also recommend the discussion link…re:What makes one vote Repulican?

Enjoy.

They go underrepresented. Since we only really have two parties to choose from, you usually have to hold your nose on who you choose. It gets worse when the districts are gerrymandered so that they give safe seats to only one party, as is a huge problem in CA and some other states in the last 10 years. You get fewer choices and more extreme viewpoints. If there is no real competition from the other party for your seat (because they chopped up the voting districts to make it that way) then you only have to worry about someone coming in from your left (or right depending on political viewpoint). It’s an unintended consequence of the situation, that moderates can’t gain enough traction to throw out the blowhards.

The two parties have such a wide variety of groups who make them up that it’s kinda hard to accurately characterize them. The Democrats tend to draw: unions, environmentalists, anti-war, governmental workers, the North Eastern states, the West Coast. The Republicans tend to get: farmers, small business, corporations, the military, the southern states, the Midwest and the Western states. When you get down to the smallest localities though, someone who may be running as a Democrat is pro business, pro guns and pro union. You may also get a Republican running who is pro environment, pro lower taxes and pro military.

You can also ignore Chris’s rant. Unless he was going for irony that was lost over the internet, setting up a dichotomy of “good qualities vs. evil qualities” to represent the two groups is pretty intolerant itself. :laughing:

To steal from 538, poster Steven had this pretty good gem amid some of the “Republicans were dropped on their heads” garbage:

[quote=“Steven from 538”]Here are a few reasons I can come up with for conservatism:

  1. “Epistemological modesty”: I loved David Brooks’ column from a few days ago. A good conservative is highly skeptical of human understanding of complex systems and ability to manipulate them without fostering unintended consequences. This ideal, to me, works towards a favoring of markets. I find Hayek’s arguments compelling, if I part ways with him at some of the more specific, nuts-and-bolts aspects of the so-called “Austrian school.” I believe that the collective knowledge of people making their own decisions is far more than groups of technocrats directing or heavily steering the markets themselves. My ideal is a lightly-regulated but strictly-enforced system allowing people to operate freely.

  2. “Belief in slow, responsible change”: Robert Peel was a Tory prime minister who ushered in the repeal of the Corn Laws, a position that was highly unpopular with protectionist conservatives in his party. Peel, in my view, was an excellent conservative: he understood when change was necessary, accepting the need for reform in some cases to preserve the greater system. Fred Thompson hit at this during the campaign: ‘Responsible change is the essence of conservatism.’

  3. “Federalism”: Different states have different priorities, and the individual states can function as “laboratories of democracy” in a federalist system. Provided that the federal government ensures equal protection, diversity in states is a good thing (unlike pre-Civil Rights era, when diversity in states led to segregation, etc.). A conservative prefers the small, more accessible state government to the national government when possible.

  4. “Respect for the country’s past”: I reject the Howard Zinn interpretation of history outright (and not just because his work is poorly sourced). I don’t believe that the history of the republic has been the struggle of working people. I believe the American republic has largely been about the gradual achievement of ideals of the 18th century Enlightenment. We’re not perfect, certainly, but I don’t agree with the “grievances” pushed by the left.

  5. “Respect for the law”: As a conservative, I found Barack Obama’s statements about what’s needed in judges to be appalling. From the Economist:

“Mr Obama might make good choices—his choice of advisers has usually been sound. But he has promised to pick judges for their “empathy” and “understanding” of “what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” That could just be campaign blather, but conservatives fear he means it: that he really does want judges to favour the underdog rather than uphold the law dispassionately as their oath of office requires. Stephen Calabresi, a conservative jurist, says an Obama court could usher in ruinous shareholder lawsuits, huge punitive damages and even a constitutional right to welfare.”

This was paraphrased from remarks he made to Planned Parenthood in 2007.

On the same token, as a conservative, I don’t have much admiration for the turn-of-the-century progressives like Woodrow Wilson who believed that the constitution was an obstacle to his own conceptions of rather than a guidepost of sagacity and realism. The idea of splitting sovereignty and power intentionally slowed the pace of change and the authority of government. To me, this is a blessing, not a curse.

  1. “Equal opportunities instead of equal outcomes”: This is just my own conception of what’s fair. I don’t like the idea of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and I don’t think it works. A government’s responsibility is to provide equal opportunities and a minimal safety net.[/quote]

Interesting, lbsig. Thanks.

OK…I read the piece.
IMO, the article is not really worthy of much comment. Its a low level rant about slacker angst and projected self-superiority.
To compare the inconvenience of not having the correct change for a metro ride to the similar reasoning behind the choice of a political party belong belies the authors shallowness. I look forward to his reviews of his local coffee shop.
Sophomoric - C+.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]OK…I read the piece.
IMO, the article is not really worthy of much comment. Its a low level rant about slacker angst and projected self-superiority.
To compare the inconvenience of not having the correct change for a metro ride to the similar reasoning behind the choice of a political party belong belies the authors shallowness. I look forward to his reviews of his local coffee shop.
Sophomoric - C+.[/quote]
I think the author is just thinking that conservatives are driven mainly by anti-government sentiments, which seems to be an issue recently. The author is correct, but that is only a small part of the underpinnings that motivate the conservative mind.
I know I have little patience for government workers or other service workers that don’t think, for example, and get irritated more so than my liberal peers at such often daily disgraces. I think because conservatives understand that service can be refined, and it usually takes a conservative, strong-willed leader, who’s understand reality and the complexities, and is willing to get nasty with people in order to reform the system and create the change that reflects better idealism, which the conservative knows is achievable. When the conservative sees incompetence, he or she will blame it on laziness, or the liberal tendency to keep harmony in the workplace or liberal disgust at “unnecessary” (for them) conflict, but more often than not, a childlike, superficial viewpoint about how the world works, which prevents idealism from being achieved. So anger at incompetence and inability to solve problems is really a desire to assert real ability in areas they don’t have control over, just as they’ve successfully solved problems to their satisfaction and pride in their own jobs and areas of responsibility.

Now the liberal is more tolerant of such incompetence because they firmly believe the system can’t be fixed or bettered with the philosophy they’ve chosen in life and voted to run government They can’t even entertain or imagine it, most times. (And those that do, realize it takes conservative principles to achieve it, and so they reject such.) So the only thing that can be done is just go with the flow. The more socialist a country becomes, the more solid and widespread this thinking becomes in a populace. Just let life happen to you. And many “tolerant” liberals really are that incompetent themselves in their own jobs – so it’s easy for them to forgive incompetence in others, because that’s what they want.

That’s quite a doozy of a strawman, jotham. I see you have nothing to back it up.

Because governments are just not very good at providing services.

It’s easy to point to the more noxious elements of the party: its fundamentalist Christianity, its strong association with the Confederate States and the, “I don’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab” redneck stupidity.

But the Democratic party has its own problems too. Obama, for all his eloquence, has spoken a lot of protectionist nonsense in the past: of scrapping NAFTA, for example, or more recently, of “buying US”. The effect of such policies is to make Americans pay more to buy less. More money for fewer schools, bridges, highways, food or whatever. The growth of non-protected parts of the economy is stifled under unnecessarily high taxation. Overall, the nation is poorer as are its trading partners.

Obama never says, “I will make everything more expensive in the heart of a recession” but that is what “buying US” means. Markets are actually the most democratic of things: to buy US or not? This can be left up to the consumer.

I agree with your what you wrote about the government being poor at giving services, but the Confederate States bit I don’t agree with.

Last I checked, the Confederacy was demolished in the 1860’s. There aren’t Confederate states or Union states anymore. Hell we only had 34 states at that point anyways, and don’t forget that up until the end of the Civil War you could still own slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were in secessionist states, not in the states or territories that stayed in the Union.

I don’t think that has much to do with anything though because this is the 2000’s. The people now didn’t own slaves in their life time. Someone in their family a ways back might have, if they were wealthy enough, but why would you punish someone now for something their ancestor did 150 or 200 years ago? Doesn’t make much sense. The residents of those states deserve equal representation just like any other state.

Anyways though, why did this get moved from IP to temp?

It got moved back.[quote]

Markets are actually the most democratic of things: to buy US or not? This can be left up to the consumer.[/quote]If only. Trade agreements and regulations would be so much simpler.

[quote]Because governments are just not very good at providing services. [/quote]Bureaucracies are not very good at promoting intelligence, and therefore providing services. Unfortunately, governments unshackled of bureaucracies seem to go off track very quickly.

As to the title question there’s many answers.

For starters, the values that Republicans profess are fairly popular. Low taxes, free markets, small government, tradition, family values, etc. There are plenty of people who genuinely support these sorts of things, and they believe that of the two parties the Republicans are closer to representing their values. This is the majority of the “base.”

After that, you’ve got a number of people who are Republicans because that’s what people in their social or religious group do (e.g. everyone in my country club is, so I am too).

Then there are people who have direct interests related to Republican power. These people exist on both sides and have money and influence, but make up less of the electorate than it seems.

There’s a few out there who have had some bad experience with Democrats (e.g. my house got knocked down in Candidate X’s urban renewal project, so I don’t vote Democrat).

Finally, you get to the relatively small group of real bigots who just don’t like _____ Democratic Constituency and will not side with any party that supports them.

These Confederacy/Civil War based rationales make no sense to me. The former Confederacy used to be overwhelmingly Democrat but has switched for other reasons, most of which have nothing to do with what went on 150 years ago.

By the way, that Metro experience sounds about par for the course. Those who complain about the MRT don’t realize how good they’ve got it.

As to his inquiry about how poor customer service can exist in private markets, I would submit that people don’t want to pay extra for something that they’re hoping they’ll never have to use.

I think a better question is what is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative?

My observation is that, when you peel away all the layers and arrive at the essential world view of each, what you find on one hand is a person who has an essentially materialistic view of reality versus one believes in a traditional spiritual realm which is the center of existence.

In other words, for a liberal, only that which can be physically experienced matters and has any credibility while the conservative either believes in a traditional God, the soul and a whole coterie of other spiritual intangibles or comes from a family strongly grounded in those beliefs and is still influenced by them.

So, for one, God is the center of human existence and for the other government is the center of human existence. These two world views are constantly and unavoidably in conflict on every level and are essentially irreconcilable.

[quote=“spook”]I think a better question is what is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative?

My observation is that, when you peel away all the layers and arrive at the essential world view of each, what you find on one hand is a person who has an essentially materialistic view of reality versus one believes in a traditional spiritual realm which is the center of existence.[/quote]
Oh, that’s just pure bunk.

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“spook”]I think a better question is what is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative?

My observation is that, when you peel away all the layers and arrive at the essential world view of each, what you find on one hand is a person who has an essentially materialistic view of reality versus one believes in a traditional spiritual realm which is the center of existence.[/quote]
Oh, that’s just pure bunk.[/quote]

Do you believe in a traditional God, the human soul, a traditional heaven and hell?

[quote=“spook”]I think a better question is what is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative?

My observation is that, when you peel away all the layers and arrive at the essential world view of each, what you find on one hand is a person who has an essentially materialistic view of reality versus one believes in a traditional spiritual realm which is the center of existence.

In other words, for a liberal, only that which can be physically experienced matters and has any credibility while the conservative either believes in a traditional God, the soul and a whole coterie of other spiritual intangibles or comes from a family strongly grounded in those beliefs and is still influenced by them.

So, for one, God is the center of human existence and for the other government is the center of human existence. These two world views are constantly and unavoidably in conflict on every level and are essentially irreconcilable.[/quote]
That’s pretty funny. I’m Mennonite, and my family and relatives are all pretty conservative in our lifestyles. Politically, we’re overwhelmingly liberal. :laughing:

[quote=“spook”][quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“spook”]I think a better question is what is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative?

My observation is that, when you peel away all the layers and arrive at the essential world view of each, what you find on one hand is a person who has an essentially materialistic view of reality versus one believes in a traditional spiritual realm which is the center of existence.[/quote]
Oh, that’s just pure bunk.[/quote]

Do you believe in a traditional God, the human soul, a traditional heaven and hell?[/quote]Pretty much. I’d say all of those traditional renderings are very poor rough approximations – but oddly enough that’s far more a traditional Catholic position than one might expect given a Lutheran upbringing.

Care to connect the dots in your road map from spiritual to conservative?