Daily Poll: Should Atheists Vote Republican?

Comments

October 18, 2006 at 7:49 am

(1) Alonzo Fyfe says:

I have favored Republican candidates in the past, and may do so in the future - specifically when I thought that Democratic policies were so economically naieve that the well-being of the country was at risk.

Currently, with a Republican party that supports a President with absolute and dictatorial powers - with events such as yesterday’s suspension of habeas corpus - with signing statements, torture, arbitrary arrest with indefinite confinement, with almost complete suspension of the Bill of Rights - and a Republican congress that helped engineer the the almost complete destruction of our system of constitutional rights and protections - nobody, atheist or theist, should vote Republican.

October 18, 2006 at 2:50 pm

(2) Kevin says:

I’ve always voted Republican in the past, but it was more a case of voting against Democrats than actually for the Republicans. I deplore the socialist agenda that permeates the Democratic party while at the same time I admire their stance on personal freedom. However, my primary concern is caring for my family and I need to keep the government out of my wallet.

Recently the Republicans have become just as big at spending my money that there is almost no difference anymore on that front.

I’ve been left with no one to vote for.

October 18, 2006 at 3:27 pm

(3) Austin Cline says:

Recently the Republicans have become just as big at spending my money that there is almost no difference anymore on that front.

Republicans have always been just as big at spending — it’s merely that they favor spending the money on different things. Although there are few True Believers in the ideology of “smaller government,” most conservatives have simply used that label as a way of attacking government programs favored by Democrats without actually having to name them and take a specific stand on some specific program. Through the 60s and 70s Democrats retained power in the House and Senate in large part because they kept backing popular programs. Republicans couldn’t attack those programs head-on with much success, so they created the “smaller government” mantra to basically go around the back.

Most people can think of government programs they dislike and would like to see ended, but everyone would come up with a different list (not unlike how everyone opposes politicians who engage in pork-barrel spending, except when it’s their politician doing it - in that case, they are simply looking out for their constituents’ best interests). This effectively prevents creating a majority against a single program or a single group of programs. Anyone who campaigns against specific programs risks alienating too many voters. It’s much more effective to keep repeating “smaller government” and “cut the waste,” which lets voters fill in the blank spaces on their own. Voters imagine that the politician opposes the same programs they do.

In some cases, that politician may even vote against some of those programs — but they’ll turn around and vote in favor of different ones. Conservatism is all about “conserving” — conserving traditional morals, values, power structures, institutions, privileges, etc. If that is aided by cutting government spending for a program that undermines tradition, they’ll do it. If that is aided instead by spending government money for a program that supports tradition (like sending more FBI agents to raid companies that make adult films, or sending out undercover cops to buy vibrators), they’ll do that.

October 18, 2006 at 7:49 pm

(4) Kevin says:

Austin,

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the Republicans typically spend money on other things, but almost invariably it is the right side of the aisle that is pushing for tax cuts while the left side says we need more money for social programs. Republicans have historically spent alot on defense, which is a ligitimate purpose of government. Democrats have more often pushed for wealth redistribution schemes that are conspicuously absent from the Constitution.

If the Democrats had more respect for personal property rights and personal responsibility, I would gladly hop on board. Until then, I am a man without a party.

October 18, 2006 at 8:38 pm

(5) Austin Cline says:

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the Republicans typically spend money on other things, but almost invariably it is the right side of the aisle that is pushing for tax cuts…

True. And is it really a sign of responsibility to push for tax cuts while continuing to push for more spending? Under Clinton, we had budget surpluses.

Republicans have historically spent alot on defense, which is a ligitimate purpose of government. Democrats have more often pushed for wealth redistribution schemes that are conspicuously absent from the Constitution.

The authorization to print money is also conspicuously — and deliberately — absent from the Constitution. Only a fundamentalist ties themselves exclusively to the text of a document.

October 19, 2006 at 12:18 pm

(6) Kevin says:

Austin,

I agree that it is irresponsible to push for tax cuts while increasing spending. The responsible thing to do, and what Republicans used to do, is reduce spending in conjunction with the tax cuts. Somehow, I doubt that that is part of the Democratic plan for America.

Your comment regarding the authorization to print money is curious in light of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says, “The Congress shall have power…To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;…” Now you can say that coins are different from paper money, but the power to establish a national currency is clearly implied here.

I read the remaining powers granted to Congress, and was unable to find anything about taking money from one citizen to give to another.

October 19, 2006 at 1:09 pm

(7) Austin Cline says:

I agree that it is irresponsible to push for tax cuts while increasing spending. The responsible thing to do, and what Republicans used to do, is reduce spending in conjunction with the tax cuts.

Funny, but I don’t remember Republicans reducing spending, reducing taxes, and creating a stable economic situation. I remember them preaching that they would do so and that if just given enough time, everything would be OK, but I don’t remember them ever succeeding.

Funny how some of the same Republicans keep saying that if we stay the course and trust the Leader, everything will work out fine in Iraq. The fact that neither program was ever based on reality or truth doesn’t seem to matter.

Somehow, I doubt that that is part of the Democratic plan for America.

You mean, like when there was a budget surplus under Clinton? I’ve mentioned this once already and you ignored it. The reality is that the last Democratic president balanced the budget. The reality is that the current Republican president has ballooned both the deficit and the debt, all while lowering taxes on the rich. It’s only the ideology of wishful thinking that persists in painting Democrats as inherently worse than Republicans. Placing ideology above reality is never a good idea.

Your comment regarding the authorization to print money is curious in light of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says, “The Congress shall have power…To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;…” Now you can say that coins are different from paper money, but the power to establish a national currency is clearly implied here.

Not only will I say that coins are different from paper money, but the authors of the Constitution said so as well. They specifically and deliberately left out any authorization to print paper money because of bad experiences with over-printing, inflation, etc. Only coins made from precious metals were regarded as secure. This is an established historical fact, not simply my opinion or an inference I’m trying to argue for.

Under the original meaning and intent of the Constitutoin, it’s illegal for the government to print paper money. Period.

I read the remaining powers granted to Congress, and was unable to find anything about taking money from one citizen to give to another.

The authority to provide for the general welfare does far more to imply an authority to levy taxes to provide for services for all and that ultimately benefit all (like schools, health care, roads, etc.) than the authority to coin money does to imply the authority to print money.

Once again: it’s a mark of fundamentalism to be wedded to literal meaning of the words in a text. The authority to do what you deplore is no less secure than the authority to print money, the separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial, judicial review of laws, and a host of other things we take for granted. The absence of specific words does not logically entail the absence of a concept — never has, never will.

October 20, 2006 at 3:32 pm

(8) Todd says:

If you are straight, christian, white, male making more than 100,000$/year, you should vote republican. If you are not all of those, you are hurting yourself and others if you do.

October 24, 2006 at 3:42 pm

(9) GrandmaVickie says:

I am fed up with the republicans and their holier-than-thou posturing. I am sick of this dumb-ass we have in the White House that thinks he is talking to Jesus. I have also had more than enough of these right-wingers who want to push Intelligent Design in our schools claiming it is a valid science, bring prayer back in school and whine that if they can’t shove their religion down everyone’s throat they are being picked on. This is NOT a christian country. Get over it.