The GOP is often labeled as rich, racist, self-righteous, elitist. And although there is no shortage of independently wealthy conservatives – the rest of the stereotypes hold little truth; as a matter of fact, they could not be further from the truth.
It is time to set the record straight on a few things….
The Racist Republican?
The first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln; he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, forever ending slavery in the United States. Lincoln thought the practice of people owning other people reprehensible.
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party and a slaveholder, was outwardly verbose about his stand on the inferiority of black people compared to his Caucasian brotherhood. His party fought tirelessly to maintain the status quo.
Even on the official Democratic website (www.democrats.org), there is not one mention of the abolition of slavery.
There must be a disconnect here – I think it may be the Republican Party’s philosophy on welfare reform measures. Statistics define a good majority of welfare recipients to be minorities. Maybe these particular individuals think wealthy conservatives simply do not want to put their hard-earned tax dollars into the welfare pool so they may continue to receive handouts.
Guess what, that part is true – but it is not exclusive to black recipients or any other minority – it is a resistance without color bias. Republicans believe that every able-bodied person should work and pay their own way, just as they believe in keeping taxes as low as possible.
See the correlation? So, racist Republicans? I don’t think so. The Democrats may have that all backwards. Are they loyal to a party that’s deceiving them? That seems more like reality.
The Rich Republican Elite?
One of the mantras of the GOP is, “Small business: where prosperity starts,” and that says it all. Think about that for a moment. What does it take to be a prosperous small-business owner today? I think blood, sweat, tears, hard work, determination and giving 110% starts the list of attributes.
But the point is this – you get what you give; you reap what you sow. I guarantee no one got rich owning a business where they sat back and did nothing. Wealth and success does not knock at your door – you find it, and it is no easy feat. Sure, there are some "silver spoon Republicans," if you will; those that are born into wealth – usually by way of the success of their hard-working parents.
But the Democratic Party has the same occurrence. The bottom line is, the largest part of the wealthy Republican Party membership are not Rockefeller Republicans – they got to be so on their own merit, hard work and will. Ironically, something most of us have built in.
The problem is, some people can’t stop whining how life is unfair long enough to hear their own inner voice that tells them, they too, can reach the stars. So rich, republican elitist? Nah, more like, a perfect example of all that is American.
In summary I think Tom Barrett, a minister from The Conservative Truth (not the mayor of Milwaukee), says all the stone-throwers need to know in the following excerpt:
"Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home. Abolishing slavery. Free speech. Women’s right to vote. In today’s stereotypes, none of these sounds like a typical Republican issue, yet they are stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early on."
Republicans believe in individual responsibility. They believe that the government should be the servant of the people, not their master or their mother.
So even if a Republican happens to be rich, that does not mean they were handed wealth on a silver platter; chances are, that conservative knows hard work and determination well. And it certainly doesn’t translate to being racist, self-righteous, or elitist.
So, next time you’re tempted to judge a book by its cover (if you are one of those people, like most of us are), take the time to think twice about your conclusions; nine times out of 10, I bet you're are little off base, if not completely out-of-line.
Unfortunately, too many of Santo Ingrilli's ilk believe that to be insightful political wit.
Bren, Bren... The typical condescending, "I-know-better-than-you tone" so characteristic of many on your side. So superior. Well, newsflash: I can be an insufferable know-it-all if I want to. I did notice that the article was quoting so called "research". Even at that: 1)HuffPO is still not a reliable source to me and 2) If you read my post CAREFULLY, you can see I did quote phrases the article used in reference to the research. Go now and talk down to your kids (if you have any).
Apparently it makes you feel good to dig deep and make something there (even when it is not) and make yourself feel better? Pat yourself on the back all you want but you should look deep and honest - my fingers are not in my ears, they are pointing at you.
History is important so we don't repeat the same mistakes. It must be studied in it entirety, not just the bits and pieces we like.
The liberal is pro choice and not pro death penalty. I am pro-choice on abortion, pro-choice on gun ownership, and pro-death penalty. Do the two extremes make me a moderate? I believe that how you conduct your behavior is a matter of choice and as long as you are not taking away from others the government should but out.
You are either being intentionally misleading or ignorant of the facts. $143 million was given to the state. Based on the rules of the settlement, the state is allowed to whatever it wants with $31 million and the rest must go to home owners. The structure of the settlement was done this why to reduce the hardship brought on the state because of the foreclosure crisis. I would argue that a budget deficit seems to be the exact purpose for the money. Please tell me what he did wrong. The tobacco money had a specific purpose. In that settlement the money was to go to preventing tobacco use. If the foreclosure settlement had the same stipulation I would agree with you; however, it did not. Michelleo, please tell my which thousands of jobs were lost because of Walker's budget fix. Then explain the problems that schools now face because of funding cuts. Lastly, please tell which hurts the unions more: 1) that fact that can collectively bargain or 2) they can't collect dues. If you do any research it is #2 and that is why they are pushing a recall. The truth is you have no proof of anything you said.
Also, I find it funny that you defend Republicans from the slings and arrows of the Democrats by doing just that to the Democrats. By posting a photo of Obama supporting communism, you are calling democrats socialists. I just kind of feel like your message becomes completely invalid by being a hypocrite (don't call Republicans bad things! In return, I shall shall say bad things about democrats!) Its also kind of an accepted fact that not all hard working people can achieve massive success. Some of the rich are in fact handed their fortunes on a silver platter, but many others work hard for their fortunes. However, not everyone who works just as hard earn the same level of success. in fact, this whole post kind of hurts the republican image. How could you not have known that "Republicans" from the 19th century are not at all like the republicans today? I am a moderate who swings between the two parties, but this post absolutely makes me embarassed to even consider being a "republican"
Who, in Lincoln's time believed in entitlements? Paying foreign countries to be our friend knowing they want to kill us? (money we do not have to throw away mind you) You are right a lot has changed since then; a man of color coudn't vote and today he is our commander in chief. Back then our issue was importing tea at a premium. Today we are buying oil from countries who want us wiped off the face of the earth. Despite this fatal attraction we have with them, we refuse Canada's oil and Pipeline? It used to be the leaders of the free world had a brain, today they are too entrenched in hidden agendas. If we do not turn things around soon, we will be embarassed to be an American.
From the look of things, Sean can defend an argument without my help. I just had to point this out.
Seems entitlements and spending is a valid question. The XO pipeline seems to be a party issue as well, and I personally would like to know what moderates think of it. Maybe you are afraid to ask questions without first knowing the answer, Randy. I, however am curious. (sorry if I pointed that out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgXGM_AuO8&feature=youtu.be
Great essay! Keep up the good work. Here's a short list of socialist intellectuals the Collectivists (Progressives) embrace: Marx Hitler George Soros (Nazi collaborator WW-2) Stalin Pol Pot Che Castro Amin Mao Mussolini Hirohito Lenin Rykov Ho Chi Minh Vo Nguyen Giap Bill Ayers (member of SDS; U.S. domestic bombing terrorist; friend of Obama) Wade Rathke (member of SDS; founder of ACORN; friend of Obama) Kim II Sung In essence the proponents of Collectivism have since 1915 victimized approximately one billion people world wide and contine to do so. Collectivism is a multi billion dollar a year profitable corporate network for elitists who pedal Socialism(s) (snake oils). This socializing rthetoric is union rhetoric. Coincidence? Hardly. How, when, where and why did all that snake oil come about? One could trace it back to the Fabians but for all intents and purposes the finger must be pointed at Karl Marx who's only 2 goals were increase his own personal wealth far beyond what he was already worth and to also rule Russia. He was terrribly envious of Russia's aristocrates, the society he wasn't born into. The rest of the story that leads to the present can be followed here (white paper): http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/index2.htm ...and the video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#
(Ms. Rand was, by the way, laughably naive.)
Citing Lincoln's politics in modern times is as absurd as comparing Lincoln to Jefferson. Lincoln's been dead for almost 150 years. I imagine he'd be horrified to see what his party has become. Nonetheless, he was not as racially blind as you suggest. He may have freed the slaves, but he believed that they should be resettled somewhere away from white people. He was opposed to the mixing of the races. Jefferson was not the founder of the Democratic Party, by the way. Nice try, but the Democratic Party did not come into being until the 1830s. This was about 20 years after Jefferson's presidency and four years after his death. Andrew Jackson is regarded as the first Democratic president. On the question of slavery...unless you're arguing that there were absolutely no Republicans in the old south and no Democrats in the North, then slavery really isn't a party issue. There have been racists on both sides of the aisle.
It was Ronald Reagan who championed the Earned Income Credit. That's the tax credit for the working poor that has so many Republicans riled up...the tax credit that often means they pay no taxes and may even get additional money in their refunds. Was Reagan one of those radical Democrats who support redistribution of wealth? The truth is that this Republican Party has swung so far to the right that many of the great Republicans you've cited, like Lincoln and Rockefeller, wouldn't recognize it. Even a present day Republican, like the great Olympia Snowe, is so appalled and discouraged by partisan bickering, that she's leaving public office, thereby ending a distinguished career. Instead of patting yourselves on the back because we had a great Republican president 150 years ago, you might want to read and reflect on the statement Snowe published in the Washington Post. I'm sure half of you are rejecting the Post as a reliable source of news, but it is the venue Senator Snowe chose: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/olympia-snowe-why-im-leaving-the-senate/2012/03/01/gIQApGYZlR_story.html