Article

It is very difficult to figure out what people who vote Republican actually stand for. I have tried many times to understand their positions through discussions, but I rarely get anywhere. The party is filled with contradictions. The few things that seem consistent are pushing tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, being upset with various groups of people, and frequently choosing aggression over dialogue. Trump has taken that to an extreme. When Republicans refuse to engage in meaningful discussions about these contradictions, I am left trying to explain their positions for them.

Regarding love and compassion, the Republican Party actively promotes Christianity. Yet Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. He even said that all the laws and teachings of the prophets depend on those two commandments. If Republicans want Christianity to play such a prominent role in our government and society, shouldn't they be following its most fundamental teachings?

I believe organizations, including governments, should have mission statements and goals that guide their decisions. I think what Jesus taught is an excellent foundation: start with loving others.

The Preamble to our Constitution is essentially our government's mission statement:

To me, that is very much in line with loving and caring for everyone. Our government's actions should be directed toward achieving those goals.

I also think it is helpful to look at government as something like a parent responsible for the well-being of the country. When evaluating policies, I often ask myself, "If that were my child, what would I do?" Would I try to help them succeed, or would I simply punish them when they struggle?

Now, let's look at the conservative principles you listed.

Fairness

Who doesn't want fairness? Democrats also believe people should contribute to society, follow laws, and be held accountable for their actions.

The phrase "expect consequences when they do not" is where we may have a difference.

What is the purpose of those consequences? Is it simply to make someone suffer because they did something wrong, or is it to prevent the behavior from happening again?

Making someone suffer simply for the satisfaction of punishment doesn't strike me as a loving approach. Jesus even challenged that mentality when he taught people to turn the other cheek.

If our goal is to prevent harmful behavior, then we should look at what actually works.

Consider the death penalty. We have had it for generations, yet murders continue. States with the death penalty do not consistently have lower murder rates than states without it. If the goal is preventing murder, shouldn't we focus on approaches that have demonstrated results?

The Democratic approach generally places more emphasis on understanding the causes of crime, studying what works, and implementing policies that address those causes. Republicans often characterize rehabilitation and prevention programs as being "soft on crime." But if those approaches reduce crime, isn't that better than simply satisfying someone's desire for revenge?

The goal should be fewer victims, not more suffering.

Good Financial Stewardship

Again, who doesn't want good financial stewardship? We all want an efficient government that spends money wisely.

The real questions are what we should spend money on, how much we should collect in taxes, and how we can operate efficiently. I would gladly discuss individual spending decisions separately.

But good financial stewardship should start with the budget, and this is where I believe Republicans have done tremendous damage, beginning with Reagan.

This is one of the issues I have focused on most throughout my political discussions because the numbers are measurable, and I would think fiscal responsibility is something we could all agree on.

After World War II, our national debt was approximately 118% of GDP. Over the following decades, we appropriately reduced that burden to around 30% of GDP during the 1970s.

Then Reagan took office.

He dramatically reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 28%. Instead of reducing spending to match the lower revenue, he increased spending, particularly on the military. The debt rose substantially during his presidency and continued climbing afterward. He had the greatest rate of debt increase from after WWII to Today!

Republicans then turned against George H. W. Bush when he did the responsible thing and agreed to raise taxes to address the deficit. How is that good financial stewardship?

Now look at Clinton. He increased taxes on higher incomes, restrained spending, and left office with a federal budget surplus. The debt-to-GDP ratio was finally moving downward again.

Then George W. Bush took office and immediately pushed through major tax cuts while increasing spending. The debt burden was rising even before the financial crisis. Then the economy collapsed, revenues plunged, and the debt increased dramatically leaving Obama a mess to clean up.

Obama inherited that mess. Considering the economic disaster he faced, I think he did a remarkable job. He had to deal with reduced revenue, a struggling economy, and Republicans in Congress resisting tax increases. Federal spending actually declined in dollar terms for the first time in our lifetime! 

Then Trump followed the familiar Republican approach: cut taxes without corresponding spending cuts. Even with all the fanfare surrounding DOGE, the fundamental budget problem remained.

Biden also had years of spending decline in dollar terms being the only other president to do so in out lifetime.

Republicans market themselves as fiscally responsible, but their record often tells a very different story. I believe Democrats have demonstrated considerably more willingness to balance revenue and spending.

Limited Scope — Small Government

Any organization, large or small, public or private, can be inefficient. We should always work to improve efficiency.

Yes, government regulations can make doing business more complicated. But why do those regulations exist?

I used to work with chemicals considered toxic. Government regulations required me to pay a company to dispose of them properly. That cost money and created extra work. It certainly would have been cheaper and easier to dump them down the drain.

Should I have been allowed to do that?

Businesses used to routinely dispose of hazardous materials in ways that polluted our waterways. Remember why the EPA was created? Pollution had become so severe that the Cuyahoga River in Ohio actually caught fire!

A RIVER caught FIRE!

There are reasons we have regulations. If every business voluntarily did the responsible thing, many regulations wouldn't be necessary. But businesses face constant pressure to reduce costs and maximize profits, even when doing so harms other people.

Small government sounds wonderful in theory. But when you examine individual regulations and understand why they exist, many make very good sense.

The goal shouldn't be the smallest government possible. It should be a government that effectively protects people and promotes their well-being without unnecessary bureaucracy.

Protection of Life

This is where I see some of the greatest contradictions.

There are many kinds of life. Hinduism, for example, generally teaches respect for ALL living beings and avoiding unnecessary harm. That extends beyond human life.

Should our laws reflect that philosophy?

Deer are living creatures, yet we allow people to hunt them. I love my dogs. They have personalities, emotions, and relationships. Their lives certainly have value to me.

Sperm cells are alive, too, although they aren't independently developing human organisms. So clearly, simply being biologically alive isn't enough to settle the question.

What matters is how we determine the moral value of different forms and stages of life.

You may place tremendous value on a human embryo. I don't place the same value on an early embryo as I do on a developed, conscious human being or an animal capable of experiencing life and suffering.

Even nature raises difficult questions. A substantial percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before the woman even knows she is pregnant. If we are going to invoke God's design in this discussion, how do we reconcile that with the enormous number of embryos that never develop into babies?

But my bigger concern is consistency.

If Republicans believe protecting life is such an important principle, why doesn't that concern extend equally to other situations?

Why are many of the same Republicans who oppose abortion so quick to support military action that kills people? Why do they support the death penalty? Why support lethal strikes against suspected criminals in boats when capture or other nonlethal approaches might be possible?

Why are we cutting funding to international aid organizations that provide lifesaving food and medical care?

And look at COVID. People were dying by the thousands, yet many of the people who claimed to care so deeply about protecting life refused basic precautions such as masks and vaccinations that could help reduce transmission and serious illness.

They were willing to accept the suffering and deaths of people who were already walking, talking, loving, and contributing to society, while demanding extraordinary protections for embryos in the earliest stages of development.

Where is the consistency?

Democrats generally emphasize preventing suffering and death through healthcare, public health, social services, and assistance to people in need.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean encouraging abortions. Democrats also support contraception, healthcare, childcare assistance, and other measures that can reduce unintended pregnancies and make having children less financially burdensome.

If the goal is protecting life, shouldn't we be working to make life better for those who are already here, too?

Transgender Athletes and LGBT People

Why are Republicans so focused on transgender athletes?

We are talking about a tiny percentage of the population. There are not many cases where a transgender is dominating a sport, if any.

But does this issue really justify the enormous political attention and hostility directed toward transgender people?

Why does it so often extend beyond sports into efforts to restrict how LGBT people live their lives?

Have you ever met someone who said, "I think I'll become gay because gay people have such an easier life"?

LGBT people don't choose to be different simply to make their lives more difficult. Many face rejection, discrimination, harassment, and isolation. The elevated rates of suicide attempts among LGBT youth should concern anyone who values life.

Why would people who claim to care so deeply about protecting life support rhetoric and policies that can make life even harder for an already vulnerable group?

If you believe God created everyone, shouldn't that include LGBT people?

Where is the love and compassion?

Immigration

This same contradiction carries over to immigration.

Why are people who claim to value life so reluctant to help families fleeing violence, poverty, and desperate conditions?

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We have tremendous resources and opportunities. Why shouldn't we help more people build better lives?

Instead, we have created an immigration system that makes legal immigration extremely difficult for many people, particularly those without family connections, specialized employment opportunities, or substantial financial resources.

Then Republicans say, "I have nothing against immigrants. I just want them to come here legally."

Fine! Then why aren't we making it easier for people to immigrate legally?

Our immigration restrictions have a long history of racial and ethnic discrimination. The Chinese Exclusion Act and the national-origin quotas of the 1920s are obvious examples.

And now Trump has pushed policies that affect even people who entered or remained here through lawful immigration programs.

If protecting life and promoting opportunity are important values, why aren't we discussing how to welcome more people in an orderly, responsible way?

Where is the compassion for people who happened to be born somewhere less fortunate?

Healthcare

Healthcare is another glaring contradiction.

Why are people who claim to care so much about life so resistant to making sure everyone can receive medical care?

Healthcare costs in America are outrageous. My own insurance costs have increased approximately 20–30% in each of the past two years.

This isn't some unavoidable problem that every developed country faces to the same degree. Many other wealthy nations provide universal coverage while spending substantially less per person, often achieving better outcomes on important measures.

Why aren't we learning from them?

You mentioned that people get frustrated about paying taxes for someone else's healthcare when they can barely afford their own.

But isn't that exactly why we need a better system?

We already pay for other people's healthcare through insurance premiums, taxes, and costs shifted by hospitals. The question is how to organize that spending so everyone receives care at a reasonable cost.

If we can build a system that costs less overall and ensures that people don't suffer or die because they can't afford treatment, why wouldn't we want that?

Isn't that precisely the kind of thing a loving, compassionate society should work toward?

Love and Compassion

This brings me back to my original point.

I find it very difficult to see love and compassion reflected consistently in Republican policies.

Yes, individual Republicans can be loving and compassionate people. I have never suggested otherwise. Most people show love and compassion toward their families, friends, and communities.

But Jesus specifically challenged us to go beyond that. As he said, "Even sinners love those who love them."

The real test of compassion is how we treat people who are different from us, people we don't know, people who cannot help us, and even people we dislike.

Too often, Republican policies seem focused on protecting their own interests while resisting efforts to help others.

Consider private-school vouchers. I understand that parents want the best education for their children. Who wouldn't? But when public money is redirected toward private schools, we need to consider what happens to children who remain in public schools, particularly those in poor communities.

Wouldn't a more compassionate goal be to ensure that every child receives an excellent education, regardless of their parents' income or where they live?

This is why I keep coming back to Jesus and the Constitution.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbors. The Constitution directs us to promote the general welfare, establish justice, and form a more perfect union.

Those are excellent guiding principles for government.

I am not suggesting that every Democratic policy is perfect or that every Republican policy is wrong. Nor am I saying that everyone who votes Republican is motivated by hatred.

What I am questioning is the direction of the Republican Party and the consistency between its stated principles and the policies it actually promotes.

You listed fairness, financial responsibility, limited government, and protection of life. Those are reasonable things to value. But they aren't inherently Republican values. Democrats value them, too. The important question is how we apply them and what results our policies produce.

And that is where I would like the discussion to go.

Rather than simply declaring that Republicans stand for fairness or protecting life, let's examine whether their policies actually achieve those goals.

I believe love and compassion should be the foundation of how we treat one another, both personally and through our government.

I would genuinely like to understand that contradiction rather than simply being told that Republicans are good people with good intentions. I hope none of this feels like an attack. I greatly appreciate your comments. They are common thoughts. Digging deeper is the challenge.

Tags

---