Why Are Republicans So Unlikable?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know anything about the War of the Roses, but everything else is a set of 2 similar things that are only trivially different. In Gulliver's Travels and the Butter Battle Book, each side loathes the other because the other side doesn't do it the way they do it.

The Bigendians believe that the only correct way to crack an egg is on the big end; Littleendians believe that the only correct way to crack an egg is on the little end. In the Butter Battle Book, one side butters their toast on the top, and the other side butters it on the bottom. Obviously, when such earth-shatteringly important issues are at stake, wars must be fought over it.

Some Republicans are charming. I disagree with many of their policies, although I agree with some of their principles.

I agree with the principle of limited government. OTOH, the unbridled greed of some corporations and power blocs needs to be somewhat limited somehow to protect us all from the consequences. Also, we cannot rely on charity to provide for those unable to provide for themselves. I agree that the entitlement mentality is wrong, but I see the entitlement mentality of big corporations as a bigger problem for this country than the entitlement mentality of those on welfare.

I agree with defending the Second Amendment. I disagree with rewriting history to make it look like the Founding Fathers intended a theocracy. I also disagree with legislating ignorance in public schools.

As I see it, the Republicans are the party of greedy selfish bastards out for themselves who will not help others, are not willing to even pay their fair share, and who will take every advantage to make themselves richer regardless of the cost to anyone or everyone else and the cost to the environment and our future on this planet. It is also the party of religious nut jobs who are WAY out of touch with reality concerning basic science. To deny evolution is just as stupid as to insist the earth is flat. It IS that ridiculous, yet many of the Republican candidates are openly creationist.

Creationist in this context doesn't mean believing in a creator. It means ignoring, denying or distorting the evidence of the physical world to try to support a view of science and cosmology that dates from the Bronze Age and is unsupported and even falsified by the evidence of the physical world. They are just as crazy as people who insist the earth is flat, and it is incredible so many people are so misinformed about this subject in the 21st century in what is supposed to be a leading nation of the world.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 30 Jul 2011, 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hey - maybe I can't watch videos, but the books are open to all. The common theme is - most of the BIG political differences between the Champions of Truth and the Forces of Unreason are basically trivial things blown out of proportion by the extremist polarizing Rabblerousers which if people would talk a bit respectfully and reasonably could maybe be simply solved.

I will spare you the example fro the horror years of my chairmanship. Suffice it that I made them sit down and the demonizing subsided.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nga8WhAhP8E&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]

Self-righteous country club conservative, former George H.W. Bush-era Cabinent member, moral guardian, and "loser" gambler Bill Bennett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett#Gambling

Ah, such stewarts of moral virtue!

Stoics strive to be wise, just, moderate, and courageous--not qualities Republicans can claim these days.

Although, it seems Marcus Aurelius had a lot of experience dealing with republicans...

Republicans are not liked courtesy of the mainstream media, which is essentially the lapdog of the left and the DNC. So they try to ignore negative stories about Democrats, while doing their best to dig up any dirt they can on a Republican.

@MP

I agree with you on the idiocy concerning Amy Winehouse, and think it was beyond asinine that she wasn't allowed into the country to receive her awards. To really bring things full circle, you ought to reference Kenny Rogers's Grammy for a little song called "The Gambler" and whether anyone has a problem with endorsing that "message", as Salon.com did when remarking on the hypocrisy there.

How do lapdogs compare to running dogs?

Explain, then, why the media was all over Anthony Weiner to the point that he had to resign. Yes, even MSNBC had a field day with that one.

No need for a conspiracy there, it was a juicy sex scandal of the type that the media can't resist, party affiliation be damned. That, and you have to remember that Weiner was not a popular guy even among other Democrats, so for the media there really was no downside to flogging the story till he quit.

One major reason why Republicans are disliked is because, after scooping up the vote among the Tea Party, the NASCAR crowd, and evangelicals, they've come to buy their own line that intellectualism equals elitism hook, line, and sinker. At one time, the Republican party was guided by intellectuals like William F. Buckley. Now, Republicans look to the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Joe the Plumber - people who are proud of not knowing anything - for guidance.
Recently, Rush Limbaugh named off the only groups supporting Obama still, which included the people who Republicans generally dislike, such as blacks, union members, poor people, young people (who he sneeringly described as jobless, and living at home, and insured by their parents), and... wait for it... wait for it... OVER EDUCATED WHITE PEOPLE!
According to Republicans seemingly, knowing too much can be a bad thing. One of the principle reasons why Republicans disliked Clinton as well as Obama was because they were highly educated, and could string more than three words together sensibly.
I admit, I shouldn't take it all out on poorer people attending evangelical churches, attend tea parties, or watch NASCAR who vote Republican. In interviews with wealthy businessmen who actually run the Republican party, when the question is asked of what books have they've read recently, the answer invariably is: "I haven't read a book in years." Unused brain cells from the top to the bottom.
So, yes, one specific reason why Republicans are disliked is for their contempt of not only learning and education, but also for the educated.
William F. Buckley is probably spinning in his grave.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You sound a good deal like a cultural snob. Are you a cultural snob? Or does your nose naturally point 30 degrees above the horizontal?

ruveyn

Passing lightly over ruveyn, we might consider that reading a book doth not an intellectual [and I still despise that word, how can a scholar not?] make.

WHAT books are you reading, are you thinking or preparing for a spitback test?

My erstwhile colleagues - of whatever political shade - read in many cases as many books per annum as you might ask, delighting the publishers, and the mass of them I would trade for one semiliterate farmer - of whatever political shade - who has lived in the world paying attention and thinking.

Okay, let's face it: President George W. Bush did have a folksy charm that made him likable to many voters, but I think different personality types tend to drift towards conservatism and the Republican Party, and perhaps some of these personality traits may make a person somewhat unlikable. Also, I think different subcultures tend to esteem different qualities in their leaders.

For example, among many hard-right conservatives and fundamentalist Christians, leadership qualities are perceived in people who tend to be dogmatic, obstinate, authoritarian, tough-minded and somewhat belligerent, etc. Rush Limbaugh and Joe Arpaio symbolize these qualities. Regardless of the content of their beliefs and policies, which I disagree with, their whole approach and style strikes me as indicative of flawed character whereas their supporters see the opposite: a "strong" character. Similarly, it has been shown that conservatives tend to be high on conscientiousness but low on openness to experience whereas liberals show the inverse pattern. High self-discipline and reliability may make for a good employee, but being open to new ideas and activities makes for a more interesting person to talk to and hang out with. I would find someone who's anal retentive unpleasant to spend time with.

When Dubya was governor of Texas he got along splendidly with folks on both sides of the aisle. His Texas political cronies of both parties thought he was a "good guy".

ruveyn

Anti-intellectual is just a euphemism for stupid and proud. Also, you can't fix stupid simple-mindedness with books. Also, I have seen actual research which show that right-wingers are on average less comfortable with nuance, complexity, and uncertainty. They also score low on the big 5 personality scale of "openness".