Skip to main content

The Party of Avarice, the Party of Cruelty

It's no great secret that I used to vote straight-Republican in nearly every election. I was proud to vote for the party of individual responsibility and small government, as I saw it then, as opposed to what I viewed as the party of dependency and the nanny state. But the GOP I used to vote for isn't the same one, and I've changed myself. We parted ways several elections ago, and at this point I cannot bring myself to vote for a single Republican in any election, from the local representatives all the way up through to the Presidency. The Republican Party is, to put it at its mildest, a party driven by greed and by hostility to all those who are unlike themselves. They are the party of Avarice and the party of Cruelty, and they show this in their every word and their every action.

The singular accomplishment of the modern GOP is the fusion of pro-corporate economics with radical religious fundamentalism. Both are toxic to the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of the United States. In the reckoning of the GOP, the private sector is not only good but infallible, able to do no wrong and to fix all ills. We see this fantasy in both ends of the Republican Party, from the Tea Party fringe to the supposedly respectable economic libertarians. This philosophy leads to attacks on anything perceived as hostile to the unfettered free market, from unions and environmental regulations to taxes. The destruction of the environment and the middle class is shrugged off as unimportant when compared to maximizing corporate profits, and any additional taxes or regulations are fought with vigor, consequences be damned. 

At the same time, as if these concessions were not enough, the GOP fights to give ever-more to already profitable corporations. It isn't enough that they pay very few taxes; politicians from the Right are happy to give them even more through grotesque subsidies and inexcusable tax loopholes that have let corporations like GE pay almost nothing in taxes and netted billions for the oil giants. This charity does not extend far beyond the corporations. The GOP fights hard against even modest tax increases on the very wealthy, but they don't have a bit of concern for those who are neither wealthy nor a corporation. While they've fought for tax loopholes and subsidies for the rich, the rest of the country must bear the full weight of the push for austerity. While agricultural corporations rake in millions in subsidies, food stamp recipients see their benefits cut. While the insanely low tax rates stock market brokers pay on their income is defended, Republicans are happy to cut subsidies for education, leading to the poor and middle class going deeper into debt for a degree and thousands of teachers and other education personnel losing their jobs. Their indifference to the needs of those who are not rich marks their philosophy as a cruel one, callous in its disregard of the most economically vulnerable. These are the skewed economic priorities of the Republicans; those who have receive more, while those who have not receive even less, leading to skyrocketing inequality, damaging both to our economy and our republic.

On the other side, today's Republican Party is solidly in the way of basic human and civil rights as a consequence of their union with the Religious Right. The overwhelming majority of the opposition to full equality for gays and lesbians comes from the Republican Party. Across the country, attacks on reproductive rights--not just abortion but even access to contraception--comes from the political Right, the Party that worships at the alter of the fetus but cares nothing for those who have already been born. Attacks on voting rights, attacks aimed at female and minority voters who tend to lean Democratic, is universally a Republican phenomenon, from Texas to North Carolina to Pennsylvania. The current stances of the Republican Party put them completely at odds with basic civil rights and even basic human dignity, as they attack and vilify everyone unlike themselves. They stump for special privileges for Christianity, refusing to recognize the separation of church and state when it benefits themselves--but are quick to deny this same special treatment to any religion that is not their own. 

The GOP is at odds with reality itself, not just in its economics or in its hysteria over gay rights. Much of the opposition to the teaching of evolution comes from Republicans (the rest is, sadly, from a handful of Democrats in rural or conservative areas). The denial of climate change is almost-entirely a Republican position, from conservative think tanks like Americans for Prosperity to vocal climate deniers like Senator Inhofe. The basic science underlying climate change is solid, and while scientists continue to debate the details of climate change they are near-unanimous in their agreement that it is occurring and that it is caused by human carbon emissions. But the Republican Party denies this and obstructs any effort to change the path we are on. We will pay a dear price for their intransigence on this issue. 

The list of the Republican Party's missteps and problems is far longer than this, and each point could be broken down into a more detailed discussion of the issue. While the Democratic Party is far from perfect, and itself too often falls prey to the corporatism that animates the GOP, they are infinitely preferable to the party of the rich, the party of bigotry and hatred, the party that tries to rig elections when they can no longer win on the issues. It is a Party animated by greed and totally without conscience, a Party that any reasonable person should be absolutely ashamed to vote for, one that I never again will cast a ballot for until and unless they change their ways, which they show no signs of doing. In a time where we need humanity to draw upon its best instincts, our instincts for tolerance and compassion, the Republican Party plays upon the worst instincts of humanity, and this is the real tragedy. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...