Why are Republicans the "radical" party?

[Del Tachi]

It seems like the general consensus on this forum (and among the general public to a certain extent) is that the GOP is a party of radicals under the control of such people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Paul Ryan.  The GOP is the party of "birthers" and racists, so it appears.  The GOP wants to push granny off the cliff and end welfare forever.  Nevermind that not a single "radical conservative" holds any position of authority within the GOP House or Senate leadership.

Taken objectivley, applying these labels to Republicans seems pretty ignorant.  However, once we compare the "radical-ness" of the GOP to the Democrats assumptions like those made above become just plain stupid.

The most radical presidents in history--Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR--have all been Democrats.  The only "radical" president to be a Republican was probably Abraham Lincoln.  Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson.  Did I forget to mention that the Senate's only self-described "socialist" cacuses with the Democrats?

So, since its true that the Republicans are no more radical then the Democrats...why do people insist that they are?  Is the left really just that blind-sighted?  Has the liberal media pulled the wool over the eyes of most Americans?  What is it?
 

[TJ in Oregon]

I think the media certainly plays a role in that we seem to lack a sort of intellegent, moderate right equivalent of CNN. The conservative outlets (such as FOX) serve primarily as a post for grandstanding and entertainment than for learning about issues. When you watch a segment of Sean Hannity or, heaven forbid, Glenn Beck, it seems more like they are preaching than teaching. This helps to create an image of the right as nut-jobby lunatics beatting to the sound of a drum somewhere. This creates clips that can be recycled over and over again to make conservatives look really stupid. The left has similar traditional media outlets, but all of them have pretty poor ratings. Imagine if the left-wing media had a TV version of the Huffington Post or Move-On.org. But, typed comments on a blog somewhere don't look as good as a TV clip.

The other problem is that for the last 11 years, the spotlight of the Republican Party has been on candidates who aren't very good at speaking, ex. George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. The Republicans have been trying to sound "folksy" by intentionally mispronouncing words like "nuclear". Part of it is that we have a lot of Southerners too. When people from other parts of the country hear someone come on TV and they have a Southern accent, the perception of the speaker's IQ drops a couple points right there. It isn't necessarily fair, but it definitely happens. And not just in New York and LA; it happens in Ohio. Obviously Southerners are a crucial piece of the Republican Party and will be for the forseeable future, but it seems like a lot of our national figures are Southerners and there is still an anti-south bias.

I know my English isn't perfect; I'm an engineer, but we need to try to look smart, not folksy. Put all of this together and it appears to a lot of people that the Republican Party is on an intellectual race to the bottom.

[freepcrusher]

well i wouldn't say the word is necessarily radical. I would actually think that democrats (think Berkeley) are more radical. What the republicans (some but not all) are is not radical, but crazy/out of their mind. Someone like Gohmert, Bachmann, or (Steve) King is basically a crazy muthaf-cka. The far left democrats like Stark or McDermott are very extreme in their viewpoints but they aren't necessarily crazy because they don't make things up or believe in conspiracy theories.

[Lief 🗽]

You use Paul Ryan as an example of a radical and then in the next sentence argue that no radicals actually hold a place of power in the Republican party. Uh...

[Del Tachi]

You use Paul Ryan as an example of a radical and then in the next sentence argue that no radicals actually hold a place of power in the Republican party. Uh...

Paul Ryan is not a member of the GOP House leadership.  He is a committee chairman.

[RogueBeaver]

To a degree, I don't see what the issue with "radicalism" is. Every new ideological trend is radical in its day. FDR and Reagan being the prime examples, and then the old radicalism becomes the new norm. So I'd say embrace it as a challenge of the status quo in crisis, which is what they're doing.

[Paul Kemp]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It seems like the general consensus on this forum (and among the general public to a certain extent) is that the GOP is a party of radicals under the control of such people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Paul Ryan.  The GOP is the party of "birthers" and racists, so it appears.  The GOP wants to push granny off the cliff and end welfare forever.  Nevermind that not a single "radical conservative" holds any position of authority within the GOP House or Senate leadership.

Taken objectivley, applying these labels to Republicans seems pretty ignorant.  However, once we compare the "radical-ness" of the GOP to the Democrats assumptions like those made above become just plain stupid.

The most radical presidents in history--Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR--have all been Democrats.  The only "radical" president to be a Republican was probably Abraham Lincoln.  Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson.  Did I forget to mention that the Senate's only self-described "socialist" cacuses with the Democrats?

So, since its true that the Republicans are no more radical then the Democrats...why do people insist that they are?  Is the left really just that blind-sighted?  Has the liberal media pulled the wool over the eyes of most Americans?  What is it?
 

I'll give you Wilson being extreme, but more to do with his racism and less to do with his policies. FDR wasn't extreme. Jackson was a genocidal maniac, but the parties were completely different back then. Dean isn't extreme, Kucinich and Jackson are debatable, and Al Sharpton is a douche, but not extreme. And the GOP isn't filled with sane people; look at Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson, and Ron Paul. Socialism is considered to be mainstream everywhere except America and a few right-wing dictatorships (and even they pretend to be left-wing).

And the liberal media, like most boogeymen, is something of a myth. It exists, but is too hooked on sensationalism to have as much of an impact as the propaganda machines of FOX and 99% of talk radio.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

Simple math: How many of them have gone on to win things such as governor and president. I can count without any fingers and you'll get the clue.

[RogueBeaver]

Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul were never, and could never be, elected statewide. So the point's moot.

[Paul Kemp]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

Simple math: How many of them have gone on to win things such as governor and president. I can count without any fingers and you'll get the clue.

So the Democrats have an easier time getting "radicals" elected? Perhaps they aren't radicals at all then if they are able to get elected by a wide constituency.

[minionofmidas]

The most radical presidents in history--Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson

Lolwut?

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

Simple math: How many of them have gone on to win things such as governor and president. I can count without any fingers and you'll get the clue.

So the Democrats have an easier time getting "radicals" elected? Perhaps they aren't radicals at all then if they are able to get elected by a wide constituency.

I was pointing out the more extreme nominations form both parties don't get elected to the highest points and usually at best, tends to be ambassador or congressmen.

[Lief 🗽]

You use Paul Ryan as an example of a radical and then in the next sentence argue that no radicals actually hold a place of power in the Republican party. Uh...

Paul Ryan is not a member of the GOP House leadership.  He is a committee chairman.

Chairman of the most important committee who wrote the budget that nearly the entire party voted for and all the presidential candidates support. Chairman of the budget committee is arguably more important than Whip or whatever non-Speaker positions there are.

[Paul Kemp]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

Simple math: How many of them have gone on to win things such as governor and president. I can count without any fingers and you'll get the clue.

So the Democrats have an easier time getting "radicals" elected? Perhaps they aren't radicals at all then if they are able to get elected by a wide constituency.

I was pointing out the more extreme nominations form both parties don't get elected to the highest points and usually at best, tends to be ambassador or congressmen.

Sorry my post was more directed at RogueBeaver.

[CharlieLima]

Because the republican opinions are very radical compare to other nations with e.g. their weapon opinions. I think the big deal is that so many US citizens actually votes for them is what makes them evil and scary, at least here in Sweden, and our left wing inspired media climate where the GOP are painted as a bunch of right-wing oil horny extremists.

Often, opinions are more important than what you as a president really have preformed and that what the media are pleased to enlight.

[Jackson]

American "Conservatism" is a radical ideology. Its electoral vehicle thus must also be radical.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

The above GOP'rs are by no means radical

It's Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feingold, Newsom, and the other Dems listed are the radicals

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Let us not forget, either, that extremley radical candidates always seem to find their way into Democratic primaries--Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kuchinich, and Jesse Jackson. 

Alan Keyes, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul.

The above GOP'rs are by no means radical

It's Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feingold, Newsom, and the other Dems listed are the radicals

Obama and Reid are far from radical. Newsom seems the same way. Pelosi is very liberal but compare to the names from the GOP, looks sane in comparison. Feingold is liberal/progressive that is maverick on some issues. No one on your list is any way more radical then the GOP names above. Obama would win in landslide against any of the GOP radicals names above.  You live in fantasy world or something here.

[Mechaman]

Of course Paul Ryan is a "radical".  He's a radical statist who supports direct government subsidization of Healthcare.  Who the hell do you guys think is going to fund those vouchers?  Toy's R' Us?!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Obama is a corpratist, Pelosi, Newsom and Feingold all want to force gay marriage on he states that want to keep it banned (that does include liberal California)

Ron Paul is an Old Right Republican. Not radical
Tom Tancredo is leading the fight on real immigration reform (meaning we enforce the laws on the books). Nothing radical about that

Keyes was one of Reagan's right hands. Also not radical.
Pat Robertson was a democrat for a time and in spite of a few odd ideas not radical
Gary Bauer oh yeah the Christian Colition only want to restore foundational Bible based values. No radical there

Pat Buchanan is also like Ron Paul an Old Right Conservative Republican though the two disagree on free trade though they both opposed NAFTA etc... You view his social conservatism as radical but most of those views were the majority view for most of our history as a nation . So I view him as a restorationist not a radical.

Of course Paul Ryan is a "radical".  He's a radical statist who supports direct government subsidization of Healthcare.  Who the hell do you guys think is going to fund those vouchers?  Toy's R' Us?!

Speaking as a Republican, I opposed the Ryan budget. It didn't address balancing the budget soon enough and freeing the market.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Obama is a corpratist, Pelosi, Newsom and Feingold all want to force gay marriage on he states that want to keep it banned (that does include liberal California)

Ron Paul is an Old Right Republican. Not radical
Tom Tancredo is leading the fight on real immigration reform (meaning we enforce the laws on the books). Nothing radical about that

Keyes was one of Reagan's right hands. Also not radical.
Pat Robertson was a democrat for a time and in spite of a few odd ideas not radical
Gary Bauer oh yeah the Christian Colition only want to restore foundational Bible based values. No radical there

Pat Buchanan is also like Ron Paul an Old Right Conservative Republican though the two disagree on free trade though they both opposed NAFTA etc... You view his social conservatism as radical but most of those views were the majority view for most of our history as a nation . So I view him as a restorationist not a radical.

Corporatist aren't at all radicals. And I thought you are for freedom but knowing your stand on gay marriage, it sure looks like the opposite.


The names for the GOP I don't need to explain why they are radical.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Obama is a corpratist, Pelosi, Newsom and Feingold all want to force gay marriage on he states that want to keep it banned (that does include liberal California)

I love that conservative argument against gay marriage. I remember hearing the same argument back in the 60s during the days of segregation. "The radical liberals want to force desegregation and integration and change our way of life here in the good ole South."

Maybe the reason that the Republicans are so radical is because they have been hijacked by the Tea Party. I still think the Tea Party controls the Republican Party. Maybe they're so radical because, in today's toxic political climate, if a Republican dares to vote with a Democrat or say anything remotely nice about a Democrat, (s)he is going to be teabagged in a primary. The Tea Party is cleansing the Republican Party and transforming it into an ultra right-wing/borderline fascist party. Oh, wait...

Maybe another reason why they're so radical is because they support things that the public does not. The majority of the public wanted the public option in the health care bill; Republicans didn't. The majority of the public wants the troops out of Afghanistan; Republicans want them to stay. The supermajority of the public loves Medicare; Republicans hate it and want it privatized. The majority of the public didn't want the Bush tax cuts extended; Republicans do.

Finally, maybe it's just their whole ideology that is considered radical. They claim to be the party of small/limited/no government except for when it comes to telling women what they can and cannot do with their uteruses and telling people who they can and cannot sleep with. Two big rules for being a Republican: You must believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body but that large multinational corporations can be trusted to make decisions that affect everyone without any regulations whatsoever, and you must believe that government should stay out of people's lives except to punish anyone caught having sex with the "wrong" gender. Then they're all for the Second Amendment like it is the most important one in the Constitution - give a crazy a gun and yeah, enough said.

Republicans talk about how evil/bad government is, then they get elected and prove it. They hate government, so why do they even run for government positions? Makes no sense to me. They sure do love that government health care, though!

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I am way out there in terms of political views and thus don't really matter to either party (especially since I am not even a Yank) but:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(A) No it didn't. It fluctuated a lot, but it was generally somewhere between "no" and "HELL NO", as public opinion is want to change quite quickly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remind me, who is the president who is keeping the troops in Afghanistan and trying to send more to Libya? Oh, Barack Obama, hero of the Democratic party. Whoops!

Who was the first notable person in senate to openly speak out against intervention in Libya? Oh, evil Tea Party corporate goon, Rand Paul. Whoops!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, well I suspect the supermajority of the public would like a yacht or the ability to fly, too. Medicare is an unsustainable mess. Its either going to end in disaster now, or the next generation is going to end up composed of slaves to debt and unlikely to ever see a return on their social security or any other government mandated programs.

Mind, Ryan's program was idiotic and cowardly. He isn't even touching the surface with his "cuts", and I fail to see why anyone considers them "radical". Those Medicare cuts are less for the point of actually cutting the debt and more to make Democrats pee themselves, otherwise Ryan would have been far more willing to cut more. Rand Paul proposed a budget that would cut $500 billion from spending and would lead to no need for raising the debt ceiling or raising taxes, and it didn't even need to attack Medicare, but it was shot down without any discussion. I don't think the US government is ever going to deal with this problem realistically, and it will have some huge problems in the future for trying to delay the inevitable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I see no proof to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does that make the Democrats the party of big/extended/massive government? Also, would you prefer the Republicans decide that they cannot tell women whether or not to stab their infants to death?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose the Constitution shouldn't matter at all.

Also, in case you didn't notice, a handful of Republicans seem to be the only ones upholding the 4th Amendment (in Texas) and 10th Amendment as well, and it seems more and more like they are the only ones who care about the 1st, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you go to the grocery store and buy a cake you are making a decision that affects everyone. Should the government establish a Cake Bureau to ensure that the money from your cake purchase goes to the right people and that you eat your cake correctly?

Also, such corporations fail all the time. In fact, not three years ago many such "evil corporations" began to collapse like dominoes for corruption and easy credit from the Fed, but then they were bailed out by the taxpayers. Notably, those who opposed that were the aforementioned few Republicans who stand by their principles rather than Democrats.

[DS0816]

(A) No it didn’t. [Polling on the public option] fluctuated a lot, but it was generally somewhere between “no” and “HELL NO”, as public opinion is want to change quite quickly.

False.

Do a Google search on “public option” and you’ll see it was majority support throughout 2009 and 2010. Certainly not a "no" or a "HELL NO."