Hacker News Reader

Comment by csto12 | Hacker News Reader

Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)

Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to:

- Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military)

- Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats:

- Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs)

- Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)

The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".

Sure fine but they describe themselves as the “party of personal freedoms” so the same applies, in my mind.

The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.

> party of either thing

Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead.

Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.

Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.

Exactly. I was looking this up and only saw a couple of failed attempts at cutting military budgets since the 80s.

One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.

Clinton/Gore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_...

Also the only time the US had a budget surplus (1998-2001) in recent times.

Thanks so much. I was positive I was missing something there.

Thank you for demonstrating the hilarious insanity of bothside-ism by jokingly equating people running around carrying guns with people who do not identify as heterosexual, made me spill my Coke. You are joking, right?

I ran into this problem when I was a smart ass early 20 something on 4chan. Those were fun times being sarcastic and hyperbolic for effect. Up until I realized that it wasn't just edgy satire for a good chunk of the crowd. They actually believed a lot of the ridiculous shit we were saying. Then I learned about Poe's law and cut WAY back on my online shitheadedness. But no... Unfortunately a lot of folks who say crazy stuff believe it.

No one is banning guns at the state level, but they are with abortion

Republicans are the party of white Christian conversatives, so whatever message is most expedient to appealing to them at the moment is what they stand for.

"Small government" meant "get the Black President out of my healthcare." "Personal freedoms" meant "let me discriminate against people."

Never take a Republican at face value, especially if you're not in their in group. Get them alone and they'll tell you what they mean behind what they say.

Never take propaganda from large organizations at face value.

> Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs)

Yeah, and guess how? By claiming the program is rife with abuse, demanding all sorts of record-keeping and auditing...and then a few years later shouting blue-bloody-murder about "administrative cost" in the program.

I wonder what the actual stats are for TANF and SNAP in terms of paper-pushing and auditing vs funds dispersed to recipients.

> remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

Or the really big one: abortion. Doing things like passing legislation that forces doctors to say certain things to their patients, for example...and mandate medical procedures like forcing the mother to go through an ultrasound so they have to see the fetus and if it's old enough, listen to its heart.

Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if democrats passed legislation mandating doctors tell their patients that the vast overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports efficacy of vaccines, and oh by the way, flu shots are now compulsory? They'd lose their goddamn minds and riot in the streets (er...again?)

Maybe in the past. Now, it's just the party of "whatever DJT says, goes".

Even in the past it was nothing but a coded language. They don't actually believe in it from a principled point of view. Lee Atwater 1981 interview has continued to remain relevant. From direct racial slurs to forced busing, states' rights. Then it morphed into small government, personal freedoms. And now it's DEI and trans.

Remember in the 90s, Newt Gingrich would speak in hallowed tones about the sanctity of the rule of law on Rush Limbaugh. All bullshit.

No illegal Russians are being sent to Mexico

They never claimed to be the party of personal freedom. There's a libertarian contingent within the GOP that wishes they could persuade people to go that direction, but unsuccessfully for decades.

They have claimed to be the party of small government. And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. It doesn't necessarily (or in practice ever) mean less spending.

> And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in.

Sure, maybe if they were ever ideologically consistent. Yet somehow “government should not be involved in healthcare” also means “government can dictate your healthcare decisions” vis a vis gender affirming care and abortions. Or how “government should not be involved in wealth redistribution” means “let’s grow the national debt to give billionaires more tax breaks and subsidies”.

This is totally setting aside the fact that small government has always carried the connotation of fiscal conservatism.

The inherent contradiction in the modern Republican party is that it's a blend of Christian conservative morality with libertarian economics.

That works... until a policy area straddles both areas: abortion, free trade, etc.

I feel like American democrats are leaving Christian votes on the table. Here is a party programme of center left evangelical party from Europe [1]. For example, I find it brilliant that they rebranded the environment to the Creation.

[1] https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:9...

I don't think the hypocrisy has bothered them for quite some time. By "personal freedom", they mean the freedom for themselves to personally oppress others - not a society based upon widespread individual liberty. This is very apparent when a blatant violation of constitutional freedoms happens to someone in an "othered" group (eg Kenneth Walker's 2nd amendment rights), and they line right up in support of the oppressors.

It’s basically the party of narcissism. Which is why Trump has succeeded. Freedoms insofar as their world and life are concerned. Generally not an externally motivated “hey they need to be free too” unless they can somehow appear morally superior in a US Christian way, like abortion or prootecting marriage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com