Axis Kast wrote:
The "main issue," as you put it, is that Republicans have a coherent vision for national improvement, clear assumptions about what this or that policy will bring about, and a slew of examples which they believe validate those expectations.
They do? Are you sure about this? Much of the infighting seems to suggest that there vision is not as coherent as you seem to be making it out. This is overlooking the bigger point of NO ONE has a coherent vision of national improvement, period, on any organizational level beyond the individual. This is because it is so damn difficult to achieve axiomatic coherence even from ridiculously simple axioms the second you step beyond a straight mathematical system and into any system that requires emotion and subjective feelings to be taken into account. Do you think there would be such huge arguments about things like morality if this wasn't true. Just look at the difference between Stuart's Utilitarianism and Mill's. These are same archtype of system from nearly identical axioms and they are still massively different. Or we can look at the Social Contract. Originally, when Hobbes defined it in "The Leviathan" he used it as a support for Absolute Sovereignty of Kings. Today, we use his same exact first premises and end up with an argument for socialism.
This is a very basic mistake to assume that two different people will arrive at a similar conclusion from the same first premises, especially when talking about social subjects, were hundreds of unspoken premises and axioms exist which can be vastly different from person to person. Simply because there is an idea of a framework of conservative thought does not mean that any number of conservatives will agree or even UNDERSTAND the framework they are in. You cannot simply assume that people with similar beliefs hold them for similar reasons or even for complex reasons at all. A majority of normal people hold beliefs that have never been analyzed and are held because of tradition, emotion or a subconscious piecing together of various information within their mind and that is the end of it. When it runs into a wall they can either reexamine their beliefs or rationalize them to themselves. One is clearly logical, the other is an avoidance of having to actually change their belief to fit what they have been presented with.
When you defend this rationalization you are effectively stating that you do not wish for your fellow conservatives to be held under the same standard of logic you would hold the opposition. You may not actually feel this way, but because you have rationalized it to yourself that this is only fair, you are in effect becoming exactly what you are claiming to despise; someone who forms a caricature of their opposition without understanding that they have deep, complex reasons for feeling that Republicans are "blind, racist poop-heads."
Axis Kast wrote:
In other words, it should be possible to engage them in argument. Too often, however, they are simply dismissed as "blind, racist poop-heads." This only reinforces their sense of victimization, which in turn helps sustain the idea that politics is always "for all the marbles." Later, members of this board can't understand why Republican voters seem to put up with slimeballs and their slimeball tactics. In part, it's because of the feeling that the ends will justify the means.
To put it simply, these people aren't cardboard cut-outs. There are ways to communicate with them, and that's exactly what we need to do as a nation if we are going to move forward with everyone in tow, rather than abandon one-third of the population to a rut in the side of the road and pretend that's going to help bring about all the change we want and need.
But communication is a two-way street. This is again something you seem to fail to realize. You act as if people haven't tried to communicate with them before. It makes no sense to attempt to engage in blatant manipulation of emotions to appeal to those who are unwilling to listen to reason. I would dare say that it is actively unethical to do so. When you have a section of populace who is unwilling to believe, regardless of argumentation that homosexuality has a genetic component and thus people don't just choose to be gay or that blacks and whites are are equally capable despite the massive scientific evidence that says so, what option are you left but to shame and outcast them?
To paraphrase an old movie "What we have here is a failure to communicate. This is what they want, so they get it." When you have populace who are simply not interested in changing their minds on a subject, regardless of what is said, there is simply no way to include them in rational society if said belief is clearly immoral (like racism or homophobia). This seems to be where you are getting a golden mean from that shouldn't exist. Sure there are Democrats with idiotic beliefs that they don't want to get rid of, damn the evidence. But the NIMBYs are an annoying impediment to progress, while anti-gay groups are actively immoral. This is a huge difference and they cannot be conflated to one another when talking about difficulties in changing hearts and minds. With a NIMBY you have a zoning headache for a new power plant while a Neo-Nazi simply does not have a place in modern society, they are an archaic growth of anachronistic beliefs who actively sabotage the political landscape if one necessitates pandering to them. While it may sound fascistic I would hope you can get the nuance that there are certain beliefs that are undesirable and should be stamped out in modern society and when the holders of these beliefs refuse to change, since we cannot morally stamp them out (here's the nuance if you missed it) then we can only isolate their ideas from society. If the belief has merit, you could not actually stamp it out, as rational people would still hold it, but a belief without merit will die.
No one is saying that Republicans cannot have a voice in the political process, there is always a necessity for conservatives simply because they add due diligence to the changing of law by questioning the change. They can also call back old precedent, utilizing modernizations of old systems which work better than current systems. The problem is when, as I would argue some of the GOP has become, the conservatives go from if it ain't broke don't fix it to the nothing's wrong here party. We then have the regressive wing of the GOP who are just straight-up moronic because they basically refuse to see the differences in society between eras and assume that bringing back prosperous systems will automatically work regardless of modern context. There used to be a chunk of the party that was actively acting as responsible conservatives, but they have become drowned out, and I would suspect that numerous of them are now identifying as independents because they feel they have lost control of their party to groups who are unwilling to listen.
In many ways this dispute within the GOP is the time when you can either prove yourself to be someone willing to listen to others, consider what they say, examine your own party and decide where to go from here; or you can prove yourself to be the obsequious and obfuscating little shit that most have you pinned for.
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO
We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
