Republicans

The Italian Model

In Italy, many people have a natural distrust of politicians. That is why we always take politics with a healthy grain of salt. In many cases, the more a politician makes the political system look stupid, the more popular he or she will tend to be. Americans have yet to figure this out, which may explain why they still don't understand Clinton's popularity after the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The best example happened about 10 years ago, when Italy knowingly and dutifully elected a porn star to the parliament (I am talking real porn here, not a Playboy model). She proceeded to make headlines by taking her top of and showing her breasts during a parliamentary session. And since most European countries are not that picky about nudity on TV, the pair was promptly seen on the news by about a hundred million people, including children.

As a result of this inborn skepticism, in Italy, the risk of trivial or unnecessary laws being passed is fairly low. If the government were to enact trivial laws, they would simply be ignored by the people. So politicians and conservative groups don't bother. In a way, this is a form of spontaneous democracy, a natural system of checks and balances.

Although amusing, and although somehow it appears to work, I do not necessarily advocate the Italian model of democracy. But it is a good reference point for American politics.

The Parties in American Politics

In contrast to Italy, where it seems like there are about 500 different political parties, America only counts two major ones: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The so-called "independent" parties are so much smaller, to the point of being insignificant. I will only discuss one one of them: the Libertarian Party, for it offers some interesting ideas.

Roughly, one could say that Republicans are conservative. In political science terms, this means "opposed to change". Republicans also claim that they are fiscally conservative, which means against government deficits and unnecessary taxes.

On the other hand, democrats are supposed to be liberal (which in political science terms means more open to change). They are supposed to be more tolerant in social matters.

Therefore, in theory, both Republicans and Democrats should be in favor of a non-intrusive government: Republicans because they claim they want less government and less taxes, Democrats because they claim they are liberal.

Unfortunately, it does not quite work out that way. It has been said that in America, one party cannot stay out of your bedroom, while the other one cannot stay out of your wallet. That is why in theory, the Libertarian Party makes a lot of sense. Here is a party, whose philosophy it is precisely to stay out of people's personal lives, and as a result thereof, out of their wallets and checkbooks as well.

Their idea is that if the government were to stop regulating private behavior, huge savings would be realized. Libertarians are both the most socially liberal and the most fiscally conservative.

Of course, if "liberal" means less government, I am all for it. Yet, these are politically ensitive times, and liberalism is not always cool these days.

The Republican Party

Because Republicans claim to want lower taxes and less government, this is the traditional party of people who think of themselves as upper class. After all, aren't all the very rich Republicans?

But at some point, the Republicans decided to hook up with the Religious Right. That was not an obvious choice, but they probably figured that they could pick up a few quick and easy votes. And now you got yourself a really bizarre situation, because fanatic Christians just love government. So, you got one side ofthe party preaching less taxes and less bureaucracy, and the other side wanting to put a policeman in everybody's bedroom and next to every television set.

Here are some of the more obvious inconsistencies that have arisen within the Republican ideology as a result of the religious connection:

Being against government help for the less fortunate one the one hand, but preaching Christian values on the other.
Taking most government help away from single mothers, while preaching family values.
Promoting less intrusive government, but refusing to recognize a woman's Constitutional right to make her own decisions on abortion.
Claiming to be for less government, but being in favor of censorship of TV, movies, rap songs and the Internet.
An often irrational, almost obsessive and certainly unproductive opposition to certain lifestyle choices, e.g. gays.
In general, a weakening of the Constitutionally mandated separation between Church and State.

The Democratic Party

Because Democrats claim they care about the poor, they are extremely unpopular with people who think of themselves as business-oriented. Democrats are traditionally accused of liking taxes and big government, despite the fact that they may be more tolerant and liberal socially (which theoretically would result in less government).

In theory, Christians should be attracted to the Democratic Party, since the Bible clearly preaches helping the less fortunate. But through some bizarre twist of fate, the more fanatic the Christians, the more they seem to hate Democrats.

(After careful reflection, I have convinced myself this paradox is due to some deep, unresolved psychological issues having to do with the perception of sex. Fanatic Christians somehow, somewhere, have picked up the conviction that Democrats are too liberal when it comes to sex.)

But even the Democratic Party is changing. Due to the fact that these days, liberalism is frowned upon, there are very few true Democrats left. Our former Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, was one. But she was asked to resign from the Clinton administration for coming out of the closet. Two public statements in particular did her in: one having two do with masturbation being a safe alternative to sexual intercourse, and one to the effect that we should at least take a look at liberalizing drug laws. (Of course, both statements are perfectly sensible; Elders is known as a highly intelligent woman.)

It could be said the Democratic ideology has taken a detour through the Center Right, after Republicans vacated the spot in favor of the Extreme Right. People seem to be falling all over themselves to be perceived as conservative these days, even the liberals. I think it has to do with a profound fear of change in the voting public.

The Libertarian Party

Anybody with basic skills in philosophy should invest the time to read the Libertarian platform. The Libertarian Party has built that platform based on the premise of cutting the size of government and the burden of rules and regulations to an absolute minimum. The Libertarian Party is the only party that claims to be consistent with all principles of the US Constitution, Adam Smith's principles of capitalism, and I would add, even the Bible.

Because they preach less government, Libertarians often seem to be confused with anarchists, while in theory, they are closely related to Republicans. They are a kind of super-Republicans. They have picked up the original Republican ideology in undiluted form.

The Libertarian party should be the party of choice of intellectuals, which probably explains its relatively low popularity. Anyway, it is my feeling that this is a party that could do very well, with just a little bit of cleanup of their more extreme positions, and much more savvy marketing.

The Religious Right

Nobody seems to quite know what to do with the Religious Right. They represent a non-negligible number of votes, but they stand in the way of almost any rational philosophy or policy. The Religious Right scares a lot of people, but their numbers seem to be growing, and they are extremely well-organized. In politics, they cannot easily be ignored.

By getting the Religious Right on board, the Republican Party had to absorb an ideology that did not marry well with the concept of less government. Basically, they gave up some of their original values, and possibly shot themselves in the foot by scaring away some loyal potential voters. Now, the Republicans are pretty much stuck with the situation.

As long as they hide their involvement with the Religious Right, Republicans often win elections over Democrats. But every time they talk about abortion and their view of what "family values" ought to be, they blow it. That's what happened to George Bush, Sr. in 1992. By all accounts, he was a very smart and honest man, an international leader who had just won the Gulf War... Yet, his party leadership convinced him to talk about family values... He lost the presidential election to the relatively unknown Bill Clinton.

Bob Dole tried the family values theme again in 1996. Predictably, he lost against Clinton too.

But president George Bush's son, George W. Bush, who just ran as governor of Texas, got smarter. He is still a Republican, but at least during his campaign for governor, he did not talk about abortion or other divisive issues. As opposed to most other Republicans, he never criticized his opponents. He did not even try to take advantage of the Lewinsky mess. He won by a landslide, which shows that a focus on issues, combined with some good old-fashioned tolerance, is the smart way to make it in politics. In my view, George W. Bush will be our next president, in 2000.

Moral Values

That brings me to my next, and probably main criticism of the Republican Party. It is probably related to the Religious Right connection. Republicans seem to be waging an obsessive war on sex. They are not the only ones, but they always seem to be the first ones coming up with new ideas to censor TV and movies, put restrictions on the Internet and go after pornography.

Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, is closing down all the sex clubs in New York (he says it will reduce crime, but there are other ways to reduce crime). Republicans always seem to be the ones trying to make Bill Clinton look bad because of his sex life. The whole Lewinsky Fiasco was originated by Republicans. Ken Starr just happens to be a Republican as well.

That bothers me for two reasons. First of all, I personally happen to like sex. I cannot see anything wrong with sex, or even with pornography (which after all is just the depiction of sex). I believe society would be a more enjoyable and more productive place if we quit worrying about sex.

Secondly, I see no indication that Republicans have any less sex themselves, than any other group including Democrats. There are plenty of juicy stories of Republicans caught with prostitutes, or with mistresses, or divorcing their wives for a younger one. While the latter is not illegal in this country, it can hardly be called very moral.

Because of their preoccupation with sex (they call it moral values), we should really be tougher on Republicans than on Democrats when they get caught with their pants down. Especially, when they are also religious leaders. While Democrats usually don't go around preaching "holier than thou", Republicans do. It is a matter of not being hypocrites.

The Urge to Be Elected

Why politicians like politics nowadays, is a mystery to me, probably because I am not a politician myself. The pay is not that great, they are under incredible scrutiny, and they expose themselves to countless frivolous and less frivolous lawsuits that can completely bankrupt them.

In the past, the motivations were easier to understand. Politics used to be fun. Politics involved money, alcohol, cigars and easy women (or men, if you happen to be a woman). Not anymore. Bill Clinton tried to mix cigars and women recently; it looks like he will have to pay dearly for that lapse.

My theory is that many politicians are failed rock stars. Rock stars have it all: the fame, the money, the limelight, the women. And rock stars don't have to be concerned about reputations; a bad reputation always helps album sales. Of course, you have to be able to sing to be a rock star.

However, rational or not, it can still pretty much be accepted as a fact that politicians will do anything to get elected, or re-elected. Maybe they are just incurable idealists.

Dick Morris is Bill Clinton's former campaign strategist. By all accounts, he is absolutely brilliant and a true expert in politics. He is very effective at what he does, which is getting people elected. Unfortunately, he made headlines, and decided to resign after an affair with a prostitute was disclosed. (The thing that really got to the public, was the fact that he may have made it a habit to talk to the White House on the phone while he was with her.) Anyway, he put it this way: "Businessmen are after money, publishers after ratings, and politicians after votes". Plain and simple.

(Fortunately, Dick Morris's talents have not gone to waste. He appears to be doing some work for Republicans nowadays.)

To be Continued

Enrico, 12/08/98, 02/22/01

Comments? Remarks? Questions? E-Mail: Editor@non-trivial.com (Subject: "Republicans")

More Topics | Non-Trivial.com Home Index