The Instigator
watchman
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Morty
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

where are the real republicans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,402 times Debate No: 2402
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

watchman

Pro

As one sits back today and watches our so called Republican Party sell our nation down the river we as American citizens and Republicans just sit back and let this garbage continue. How is it possible to call john mccain a republican? he is a socialist are the American people so blind It seems as though the party has tucked there tail between there legs and ran. Do the Republicans have any guts? To me it seems as though they do not they would rather let communism to re-enter this country hell while you are at it you might as well just take the big leap and vote for the extreme communist CLINTON it is time for the party to stand up for what they truely belive in I dont give a damn about the whole war hero thing so what that does not give you a pass to the white house. Keep being stupid america where going to kill ourselves at this rate
Morty

Con

What do we mean when we say "Real Republicans"? If the argument is that they should be conservatives (economically), follow the Constitution, and be non-interventionist, then I think there is no question that the current GOP no longer fits this description. However, why is that the definition of a "Real Republican"? Yes, this was the definition of a Republican during World War One, the interwar period, World War Two, and perhaps for a bit after that. But the GOP has existed since the antebellum period. Why should we decide that the "Real Republicans" were the Robert Taft types and not the Abraham Lincoln types? If we are to accept the latter as our measure of a "Real Republican" then I think the current batch of Republicans (save Ron Paul) are very much "Real Republicans."

A few criteria modern Republicans should fit if they are to be "Lincoln Republicans": Pro-centralization of government, protectionist, nationalistic, racist, little regard for individual rights, militarist, interventionist/corporatist in economic policy, and, in general, fascist. Let's see how they fit.

Centralization of Government:
The Republicans have long claimed to be "federalist" when it came to state's rights, that is, they are in favor of them. But how true is that? Republicans currently support national bans on abortion, homosexual marriage, medical marijuana (and illicit drugs in general), flag burning, stem cell research, and other things (depending on your Republican-of-choice, Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban, for instance). Also, we can look to immigration, where the Republicans all agree this is an issue for the federal government - despite this not being prescribed for the federal government in the Constitution and thus in the realm of the states. And what Republican (save perhaps Ron Paul) believes in the right to secession?

Protectionist:
Despite their claims to the contrary, almost every single Republican is a protectionist to one degree or another. Only Ron Paul supports real free trade - which is the simple, unilateral elimination of all trade barriers and tariffs. Republicans support sanctions/embargoes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (after Gulf War 1), and various other nations, in spite of the fact that it impinges on the freedom of US citizens regarding trade. Republicans support fake free trade agreements like NAFTA (which is really just a tariff union), the WTO (which "manages" trade - sort of how socialism "manages" the economy), and all sorts of tariffs and barriers. Many Republicans are taking a "hard-line" on China - which means they want to put up all sorts of barriers to trade until the Chinese do what we want. Is all this really what free traders would do? The answer is no, and the Republicans who support this stuff are protectionists.

Nationalistic:
From their support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to their worship of all things patriotism to their support of the President no matter what, the Republicans are moving into hypernationalist territory frequently seen in countries like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not the Republican Party is infected with nationalism to the extreme.

Racist:
The whole immigration debate seems to make my point on this one. "They're taking our jobs!" is the call. As if the jobs belong to you. But what complaints are raised when jobs go to other Americans (and by this, I mean white Americans)? The fear of the Chinese and Japanese making our things is out of control as well, but what of companies in Europe? Are there protests against them? And all the hype about foreign oil? It is always the evil people in the Middle East. But what they don't tell you is the number one exporter of crude oil to the United States is Canada. And the number one exporter of petroleum to the United States is also Canada. But the issue here isn't that the oil is foreign. And the issues with China are not that their products are foreign and their labor is cheaper. The issue is that they look different and they are making things. And Republicans don't like it.

Individual Rights:
Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in the history of the United States of America. And so, in following with tradition, the Republicans suspended it once again in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The Republicans of the modern age also launched the War on Drugs - perhaps the most invasive and rights-destroying policy in the history of the USA. As stated earlier, the Republicans are also looking to ban various things that individuals have a right to do on a national scale. Republicans also support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which completely decimated property rights and freedom of association.

Militarist:
John McCain is a front-runner. Need I say more?
The Republicans have gotten absolutely out of control with their "support the troops" and military spending. So-called "fiscal conservatives" also tend to be the ones to call for massive military expenditures. Republicans are war-hawks and try to compete in hawkish statements (leading to McCain saying things like it would be okay for us to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years). If you saw the last debate, there was a segment of probably ten minutes discussing if Romney is sufficiently dedicated to stay in Iraq, despite his constant rhetoric about staying "until the job is done." McCain got on him about not supporting the surge fervently enough. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are laughed at, mocked, and generally considered to be RINO.

Socialist/Fascist Economics:
George W. Bush massively increase federal spending and the size of government. Even the Republicans admit it. They all claim to be for smaller government and "changing Washington." They then will go on to brag about how much they plan to spend on the military, police, border security, and the Drug War. The Republicans have claimed since Reagan that they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and it doubled in size under Reagan, it was increased dramatically under both Bushes (especially the latest with NCLB). They subsidize farmers, oil companies, and other "vital industries." They build and repair "infrastructure." They "privatize" Social Security not by letting you keep your money, but by putting it somewhere different than the Democrats want to put it. They support "tax reform" - which means tinkering with where the tax burden falls and, overall, raising taxes. They bail out companies that are "too big to fail" and support anti-trust to crush their more efficient competitors. They have supported price controls. They inflate and artificially lower interest rates. They spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They regulate and keep big corporations untouchable. There are some, like John McCain, who hardly even try to hide their socialistic ideas. But do not be fooled by the others. They, too, are in support of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes. The Republicans are not in favor of the free market - they are in favor of Big Government with Big Business. They are corporatists and/or socialists.

Fascism:
Above, I have described the general outline of what a fascist is. And what the modern Republicans are. This fits very well with what the early, Lincoln Republicans were and I think we should consider them the real "Real Republicans."
Debate Round No. 1
watchman

Pro

You have made a few good points in your debate but you forget one thing my friend all of the people you have mention where not and are not republicans. Lincoln was a wig not until he realized he could not be elected did he switch parties You speak of racist the dem party is the most racist party I know who can say there for the man of another color and see him achieving something only to try to take it all away because he or she became more successful than they where. You say immigration is not a federal issue? Why then do we have a federal institution (ins) (ice) to try to manage this issue? All your statements of what the republican is at this time is not what they truly stand for. You speak of free trade in the term that it is a thing america should strive for! you speak of china as it is a good nation!they are one of our biggest enemies they are trying to kill us every day or can you not see it. When we put up trade barriers we usually get our way . And as for Ron Paul he does have some great points but the more you want to sit and have a dialoag with you enemy the longer they have to establish the weapons and the bolder they get. You speak of war so what thats just part of life deal with it. We might not have all this bull going on if we had turned afganistan into a desert just plain flat sand we could have call it sand box of the east or something. A real repulican would not tolerate the bs that goes on nowadays he would kick butt and take names.
Morty

Con

The Republican Party was started by a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free Soilers. Lincoln's previous Whig affiliation fit very well with the early Republican Party. The Republicans were very Clayite in the beginning and looked to implement the "American System" laid out by Henry Clay. The Republicans were by and large NOT abolitionists, but rather just wanted to keep slavery where it was already. This was not out of some love for the slaves, but rather because they would "take away white men's jobs" if they were allowed to move west. Lincoln, in particular, opposed slavery because he believed it increased the birth rates of those with African heritage and he wanted to see them wiped from American land. That is why he also supported things like deportation of all African-Americans back to Africa. Lincoln, however, supported a Constitutional Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever barred any federal "interferences" on the institution of slavery in the South. He was not an abolitionist and did not care about the slaves. The Republican Party was and is no less racist than the Democrats.

Immigration is not a federal issue because the federal government is not explicitly given the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution, and thus the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States and to the People. Just the existence of a federal bureaucracy like the INS does not mean it is a federal issue. The fact that it exists does not change the Constitution. Do you argue that education is a federal issue simply because the Department of Education exists? Should healthcare be a federal issue, considering that we have a Department of Health and Human Services?

Things they don't truly stand for? According to who? You? Do you make the Republican Party platform? Do you control all the Republican politicians? Point to specifics. Tell me what the Republican Party apparently does not support that I said they did.

Free trade is a different issue. If you want to debate on that, I suggest a new debate so as to not clog this one. All I was arguing was that despite what many Republicans claim, they - as a whole - support protectionism in trade.
The debate on China and foreign policy in general also is a different issue. I am just stating what the Republican Party supports currently and how it is similar to the early Republican stances.

As to what a "real Republican" would do in response to the "threats" we face, I agree with you. And I think that is what they are doing. Two nations have been invaded and we are gearing up for a third (Iran) while greasing the wheels for a fourth (Syria). The tough-guy rhetoric is common among modern day Republicans and that was my point about militarism. Lincoln and the early Republicans were militarists as well. Thus, the Republican Party has not "lost its way" but rather has followed the traditions of Lincoln and rejected the Robert Taft/Ron Paul types.
Debate Round No. 2
watchman

Pro

To say the republican party is no more racist than the dems is unbelievable. the dems as i stated before are the primary ones always fighting for segregation and it pretty much still stands today among that party. Now you have made some understandable points that hold true to the republican party today but you understand and know that that is not what the republicans truly stand for. Who would dare try to say Pres George Bush is a republican! A true republican is a group of people who let the down trodden work out the problems with letting them think that government is there to help them out. They give a hand up not a hand out. They believe in getting up in the morning and busting but to accomplish a goal of success in life. Being economically smart not wating on the unemployment check. You cannot today tell the difference between dems and repubs because they both believe that government is the way out that is just dumb. How many times do you have to pass legislation to build a fence. You say basically we should have open boarders? may i remind you of how rome really fell? because they had let cheap and next to nothing labor come in and build and create everything while they sat on there rear and got fat. When it came time to defend what was theres they couldn't because they had basically forgotten how. I know that is not a great description but it holds basically true. You also say that immigration is not a federal issue! It I believe is and should be it involves this whole country no matter what boarder. I do argue that education is a federal issue and also that is what is wrong with it. Health care a federal issue? are you kidding? that is just ignorant You ask do I make the party platform? Do I control the republican politicians? I answer these questions with a big no but that in itself is the problem. We as the people should make the platform for what we believe in as republicans. Today one cannot do that because the party has run away drunk with power. And yes the tuff guy talk does run through the republican party. What has a dem done except willing to sell america to there enemies.
Morty

Con

You continue to attempt to bait me into debates which are not within the spectrum of the question. If you want to debate immigration policy, education, healthcare, and the lack of democracy in the creation of Party platforms, I would be happy to - in different debates. The question at hand is whether the current Republicans are true to what Republicans should be, in reference to their history. That is the topic I will stay on.

That said, I do not think you have looked deeply enough into the issues of racism I have pointed to. The issue with immigration has a serious racial undercurrent, whether you want to admit it or not. Again, the current legal paths to immigration are favorable to those living in a well-developed area (Europe) or those who are fairly well-off (mostly Europeans). It takes so long that those in a fairly good position are much more able to wait than those in areas like Africa, Asia, and Latin America where the issue is horrible poverty and they need opportunities sooner rather than later. Furthermore, when speaking on illegal immigration, they always talk tough on border security (where Mexicans are the vast majority of illegals), whereas overstays on visas (which make up about half of all illegal immigration [1]) is basically ignored.

The Republicans also have a position on trade which often takes a sometimes-racist, always-nationalist tone. The Republicans worry most on the cheap labor in Mexico and Asia, but have no objections to jobs moving inside the country (generally to whites). Their feelings on foreign oil are very clearly racist - the Middle Easterners are not to be trusted, but mum's the word on the Canadian oil we receive.

Not to mention the Republicans' support for the War on Drugs, which is obscenely racist. The difference between the punishment for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is case-in-point. The disparity is 100 to 1, as the punishment for five grams of crack is equal to that of five hundred grams of powder. Blacks are by and large those who use crack, and while recently Hispanics have become the largest users of powder cocaine, originally it was most prevalent among whites. Crack sentences are also on average 43.5% longer than those of powder (121.5 months and 84.7 months, respectively) [2].

As for the Republicans supporting self-reliance, that hasn't been true since the days of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. Modern Republicans, almost all of them, are supportive of the New Deal programs and even the Great Society programs. Look at Mitt Romney - he is actually left of Obama on the issue of healthcare (while Obama will provide insurance for any who can't afford it and wants it, he will not force anyone to buy insurance like Romney proposes to do to everyone). Besides Ron Paul, none of the Republicans are talking about actually ending welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare. They all just want to run them "more efficiently" - that is, their bureaucrats instead of the Democrats' bureaucrats. The Republicans may oppose increasing the minimum wage (sometimes), they certainly aren't talking about ending it. When McCain came to the town I live in, he actually proposed a guaranteed minimum income scheme and increasing unemployment insurance. The Republicans, as I stated earlier, have increased the size of the Department of Education significantly and none dare suggest that education should be privatized. The Republicans are for big government at home too - don't be fooled by rhetoric. And, again, this fits well with the Lincoln Republicans who were very much in favor of bigger government.

1 - http://www.csmonitor.com...
2 - http://www.usnews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
Fascism- "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Hitler's policies and his philosophy are perfect example of fascism.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
Indeed. Sadly, the 20th century was marked by absolutely terrible Presidents.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've read "For a New Liberty," "The Ethics of Liberty," and "Education: Free and Compulsory" by Rothbard, who is a great writer. I'll definitely add "Betrayal" to my list of books-to-get :)
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Harding and Coolidge were easily the best two presidents of the 20th century. But they weren't that good.

One really good Republican was Howard H. Buffett, Warren's father. Warren is a socialist, but Howard was very solidly libertarian, especially on foreign policy.

Morty, I recommend you seek out THE BETRAYAL OF THE AMERICAN RIGHT by Murray Rothbard. It is excellent.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
That's true. Coolidge most definitely had some policies which led to the Great Depression. I guess I spoke to kindly of the 20s-50s Republicans. In spite of a few good members who had not-negligible influence, the Republicans as a whole were pretty bad still.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Morty - In retrospect, Harding and Coolidge seem pretty good. But the Old Right did not like them at all at the time. Look up what Mencken and Nock had to say about Harding and Coolidge. Not very positive. They were inflationists bought and paid for by the newly created Fed.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
Fair objection, clsmooth. Though, Harding and Coolidge were pretty good [Republican] Presidents, as Presidents go. The Republicans were briefly anti-war prior to Pearl, but after that you are right that most of them fell into big government thinking.
Posted by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
If you want a REAL REPUBLICAN, vote Ron Paul! I understand where you are coming from. Neoconservatism/psuedo-Republicanism are socialist trains of thought. Parties are a joke nowadays though. Parties a joke period. Out of all the ways of looking at the world, Americans are limited to choosing between Democrats/"Liberalism and Republicans/"Conservatism".
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Morty is ON THE MONEY. The only thing he's wrong about is suggesting the Republicans were ever any good at all. It was only a distinct minority of Republicans in the 30s-50s who were any decent; never the party as a whole.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
Hitler's philosophy and policies are not the definition of fascism. Fascism is, at its heart, corporatism. And the Democratic Party is full of that. Their regulations give huge support to big business. Their plans for the socialization of healthcare is absolutely pro-corporations, who will get sweetheart deals from the government. The Democrats are even more in line with the fascist ideology in some ways because they add the third tier of Big Labor to Big Business and Big Government.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
The Republican party is trending dangerously to the socialist/fascist course but the Democrats are already there and more. "

What is fascist about the democratic party? Come on I have to hear this, cause that is so stupid its not even funny. Yeah those Dems with their concentration camps and wars for breathing space, give me a break.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
watchmanMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30