Cognitive Dissonance: When Talking Points No Longer Match Reality
There are many times when I find myself in a conversation with Republicans and invariably I am amazed by how the rhetoric that they use is in no way, shape or form connected to the things that they actually believe. I will now look at some of the major ones and how they prove that, in order to be a a movement conservative, you have to abandon all intellectual honesty.
We are the party of smaller government. This is the one that I hear the most. Probably the funniest example of this was when Rep. Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration zealot from Colorado (Never mind the fact that his grandparents came to this country from Italy.) was complaining about the lack of "limited government conservatives" who want "to keep government off the people's back" such as himself in the 2008 Presidential field. When your one issue is trying to keep all of those nasty furriners out of America, isn't that the definition of using the government to get on the backs of millions of people?
But, no, this was not enough. Congressman Tancredo then went on to explain that small-government conservatives want to "protect unborn life" and make sure marriage is recognized by the government as "a sacred institution for one man and woman." Can someone please explain to me how this can be small or limited government? If you want to talk spending, under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, spending increased by a higher percentage in six years than in all eight years of the Clinton Adminstration, with or without defense spending as a factor.
We are the party of fiscal responsibility. This one is easily rebutted. The last time a Republican President balanced the budget (and the only time since World War II) was Eisenhower in 1958. Since World War II, Democrats have accomplished this feat eight times (three under Truman, one under Johnson and four under Clinton), this despite having 28 years in the White House compared to 34 for the GOP.
We support the troops. As a veteran, this is one that highly offends me. In 2003, there was a vote on the House floor to provide a $1500 bonus to every veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo as part of a war appropriations bill. The amendment was killed 213-213, without a single Democrat voting against us. One of those who cast this despicable vote was Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who then had the gall to write letters a few weeks later talking about all of the good things that she was doing for our troops and for national security. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
We are spreading democracy and freedom. You don't hear this one as much lately, but a couple of years ago this one was highly in vogue. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart even ran a counter to show the number of times President Bush uttered the words "freedom" and "democracy" in his 2005 inaugural. However, you can't say that your goal is to spread democracy all across the world while supporting Realpolitik when economic and military interests are at stake, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This goes back to 1953 when the CIA took out the democractically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran after it nationalized Persian oil, on to removing democratically elected Marxists in the Congo in 1959 and Chile in 1973, to our present-day dealings in the Middle East, when groups that we don't like such as Hamas or individuals such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win elections. Democracy means accepting the choices of the people, not throwing a hissyfit when you lose.
Democrats are the angry party. If you think that the GOP has a point, mention Bill Clinton's name in a room full of Republicans and watch their faces and listen to the crazy conspiracy theories that are sure to follow.
We believe in the sanctity of marriage. This one is usually in terms of support for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. However, if the Republican Party is so committed to "preserving" marriage, why don't they include a ban on divorce in their amendment? After all, Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he didn't like divorce. However, this belief in the sanctity of marriage had its limits for heterosexual couples as well. Even though Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo's next of kin and had legal standing as her husband, and the State of Florida repeatedly ruled that it was his decision (see "local government"), the Republican Congress insisted on taking the side of Terri Schiavo's parents.
We believe in a government that is closer to the people. They say this one because they know that the phrase "states' rights" brings up connotations of white Southerners using their "states' rights" to discriminate against and enslave black people. However, as soon as a state does something that the federal Republicans disagree with, such as Oregon's assisted suicide law, which was approved by the people of the state twice, they insist on using the federal government to override state laws.
What do we do with people who are so intellectually dishonest in their talking points? What I usually do is take those talking points head on. Usually, the Republican in question will deny the falsehood. (One time, someone even told me "Of course, Republicans believe in smaller government. How dare you say that?") However, there are times when you meet someone who is honest who will admit that their talking point is wrong. It is only when we let them know that we will not stand for this dishonesty that we can have an honest political discourse in America.
We are the party of smaller government. This is the one that I hear the most. Probably the funniest example of this was when Rep. Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration zealot from Colorado (Never mind the fact that his grandparents came to this country from Italy.) was complaining about the lack of "limited government conservatives" who want "to keep government off the people's back" such as himself in the 2008 Presidential field. When your one issue is trying to keep all of those nasty furriners out of America, isn't that the definition of using the government to get on the backs of millions of people?
But, no, this was not enough. Congressman Tancredo then went on to explain that small-government conservatives want to "protect unborn life" and make sure marriage is recognized by the government as "a sacred institution for one man and woman." Can someone please explain to me how this can be small or limited government? If you want to talk spending, under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, spending increased by a higher percentage in six years than in all eight years of the Clinton Adminstration, with or without defense spending as a factor.
We are the party of fiscal responsibility. This one is easily rebutted. The last time a Republican President balanced the budget (and the only time since World War II) was Eisenhower in 1958. Since World War II, Democrats have accomplished this feat eight times (three under Truman, one under Johnson and four under Clinton), this despite having 28 years in the White House compared to 34 for the GOP.
We support the troops. As a veteran, this is one that highly offends me. In 2003, there was a vote on the House floor to provide a $1500 bonus to every veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo as part of a war appropriations bill. The amendment was killed 213-213, without a single Democrat voting against us. One of those who cast this despicable vote was Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who then had the gall to write letters a few weeks later talking about all of the good things that she was doing for our troops and for national security. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
We are spreading democracy and freedom. You don't hear this one as much lately, but a couple of years ago this one was highly in vogue. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart even ran a counter to show the number of times President Bush uttered the words "freedom" and "democracy" in his 2005 inaugural. However, you can't say that your goal is to spread democracy all across the world while supporting Realpolitik when economic and military interests are at stake, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This goes back to 1953 when the CIA took out the democractically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran after it nationalized Persian oil, on to removing democratically elected Marxists in the Congo in 1959 and Chile in 1973, to our present-day dealings in the Middle East, when groups that we don't like such as Hamas or individuals such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win elections. Democracy means accepting the choices of the people, not throwing a hissyfit when you lose.
Democrats are the angry party. If you think that the GOP has a point, mention Bill Clinton's name in a room full of Republicans and watch their faces and listen to the crazy conspiracy theories that are sure to follow.
We believe in the sanctity of marriage. This one is usually in terms of support for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. However, if the Republican Party is so committed to "preserving" marriage, why don't they include a ban on divorce in their amendment? After all, Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he didn't like divorce. However, this belief in the sanctity of marriage had its limits for heterosexual couples as well. Even though Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo's next of kin and had legal standing as her husband, and the State of Florida repeatedly ruled that it was his decision (see "local government"), the Republican Congress insisted on taking the side of Terri Schiavo's parents.
We believe in a government that is closer to the people. They say this one because they know that the phrase "states' rights" brings up connotations of white Southerners using their "states' rights" to discriminate against and enslave black people. However, as soon as a state does something that the federal Republicans disagree with, such as Oregon's assisted suicide law, which was approved by the people of the state twice, they insist on using the federal government to override state laws.
What do we do with people who are so intellectually dishonest in their talking points? What I usually do is take those talking points head on. Usually, the Republican in question will deny the falsehood. (One time, someone even told me "Of course, Republicans believe in smaller government. How dare you say that?") However, there are times when you meet someone who is honest who will admit that their talking point is wrong. It is only when we let them know that we will not stand for this dishonesty that we can have an honest political discourse in America.
posted by Albert McStephenson at 6:15 PM
1 Comments:
Not to say Dems never had some issues with this. But then again, they've been out of power for so long in Congress that it is really hard to point out where they fail on it. But truly, Republican attempts to keep consistent with their ideology are humorous.
Post a Comment
<< Home