Most children do not fall in love with politics at the age of seven. Even fewer associate themselves with a political party at the age of twelve. So how then did I become committed to the Republican Party? Perhaps, it was the political dinners at the age of four or the car rides listening to Rush Limbaugh. My family does, however, have differing political philosophies. My father does not believe in capital punishment. My mother believes in abortion. My grandfather is a registered Democrat. So what then keeps me committed to the Republican Party?
I believe in the Republican philosophy that “government is responsible for national defense and that only a strong America can remain a free America.” A weak country can easily be overtaken, but a strong one poses a formidable force in the world. America has become a world leader because its strength discourages enemies from attacking it. And this strength comes from both its military and from the ideas of democracy that established the country.
Many argue, however, that the War in Iraq and our deep involvement in the Middle East is an infringement on the rights of a foreign people, and in the process we are, therefore, destroying the cornerstone of America—freedom. But our national defense is actually protecting our freedom and the freedom of others, while keeping America safe! The rights of the people of Iraq have been suppressed by a dictator for too long. We may not have the right or the responsibility to impose our ideals and beliefs on the country, but we do have a responsibility to give them the right to live. Hussein murdered at least 5,000 of his own people in the chemical bombings of Halabja and although we have not found weapons of mass destruction, Hussein certainly did have them (hence the genocide in Halabja) and it is possible that he would have had them in the future. Through the War in Iraq, our national defense has kept America safe, while protecting the right to criticize or support the war.
I believe in the Republican philosophy that “the right of the individual to achieve the best that is within him, as long as he respects the rights of others, is the source of our Nation's strength.” Every person is created equal and should have the opportunity to reach his or her highest potential. The government should not tread on individual rights unless an individual has tread on the rights of others. If a person becomes a murderer, the government has an obligation to the victim to prosecute the killer lawfully. The punishment may involve the death penalty, but because the murderer has acted deliberately and because he treaded on the rights of another, we are not taking away his right to live. He had already taken that right away when he murdered his victim. The strength of America comes from the government’s ability to reduce its involvement in the lives of its people, while still protecting their right to live.
I believe in the Republican philosophy because I believe in a strong military and less government regulation.
Republican Philosophies from:
13 comments:
Nice job anticipating the "what abouts" from the opposition. Good opening to draw in your reader on a personal level.
I notice that your reference for the Republican party philosophy is the Gibson County Republican Party website. Have you compared it to the National Republican Party site? Just wondering if some of the things on the Gibson site are specific to Gibson County.
You write that you believe in the Republican philosophy, causing me to wonder if you understand the term "republican" in its broad and historical sense.
Have you read Samuel Clemons' War Prayer? http://www.warprayer.org/
Don't read "War Prayer" yet! We're going to read that in two weeks!
I had the same question about those philosophies being specific to the Gibson County Republican Party but I found them on a couple of other websites including http://comp.uark.edu/~collrep/crphilo.htm. I also found more philosophies on the RNC’s official website and although they are not worded exactly the same as the ones I used, they are similar in concept. (I’m wondering if the ones I used were an older version?) http://www.gop.com/about/imarepublicanbecause.htm
Yes, I do understand what “republican” means in its broad and historical sense. And I believe in these meanings too. I favor a republic, one in which the people vote either directly or indirectly for their representatives and I believe the people’s voice should be heard in government. But my since my blog deals with the Republican Party, the Republican philosophies I used are the beliefs of the party—not of the word’s historical meaning.
The Republican Party as we know it today came about from the Know Nothing Party and basically everyone who was against the Democrats. This included the antislavery persons, popular sovereignty advocates, the pro-Westerners, and so on. There was an earlier Republican-Democratic Party that is not even close to being the Republican Party of today. The historical and broad sense of Republicans stem back to slightly before Lincoln's time.
In a time when people get so hung up on political affiliations and the stereotypes that follow, it is refreshing to look back at what the parties actually stand for and have evolved over time. It is good that you have talked about your feelings of the party, rather than just bashing the Democratic Party. It is definitely a way to draw in a reader and not repel people off the bat.
It is important though to look a little more at maybe the specific ideas or policies associated with the party that you agree with; maybe a little less of how you got to liking the Republican Party. It tears me at the same time, though, because I love the way you introduced the topic with an anecdote. Maybe, you could have just written a little bit more. The topic you chose, though, is a very difficult one to write about. Make sure to keep the other side of the political spectrum in mind when writing. It seems that you did for the most part. Nice job.
You wonder, "(I’m wondering if the ones I used were an older version?)"
Unfortunately the college website does not have any publication dates.
However, the GOP site does. I assume this means the credo is current.
Well, Cpt. Pants, I applaud you for taking on a controversial subject, perhaps even more controversial than the genetic engineering blog. Politics has become such a mud-slinging contest that most voters are unwilling to indentify with a specific party, particularly the Republican Party. Your willingness to commit to a particular party and then to defend that party's beliefs is commendable and brave. I agree with Futuredevildog in that you defend yourself through your feelings to the Republican Party and not by bashing the Democrats. It has become too common these days to prove one's party right by proving the other parties wrong. So excellent job there, Cpt. Pants. Your blog was insightful, informative, and intelligent, without a single slur against the other parties.
This was incredibly refreshing. After a politcal conversation at work with a very democratic person, I began to question whether people even remembered the reason that we went into the Middle East. And the number killed was far grander than 5,000 people. What the Republican Party did by going to war was save the lives of thousands, if not millions, of civilians living there. And although they do not know how to respond to the freedoms they now have, they have the ability to embrace it or turn away. That in itself is freedom. I hope that generations to come will look back at this war with the same amount of optimism that you do.
I do not know if your argument needed the opinions of your family members to start. But it definetly shows how strongly you must believe in this party to go against your family.
:)
Your post definitely has a good opening, and like Ms. H said it really helps to draw the reader into your article.
As I was reading though, I found that your counter arguments that were meant to fend off opposition to republicanism seemed to almost lead the post astray in some instances. The examples you cited created other mini arguments within your main argument which, though related to the main one, kind of distracted me from the main point that you were getting at.
Re-reading these blog entries and wondering if any of you watched the Wed night exchanges that were labeled a debate between Obama and Clinton.
Given what you all wrote here, how did you respond to the debate.
I'll respond to everyone on in one post...
Futuredevildog, thank you for the historical background of the Republican Party. Haha You are right, though. I could have written more, but I opted against it because the Republican Party is such a large topic and I did not have enough time to continue through the rest of its philosophies. (It’s a sorry excuse, I know)
E-meister, I’m glad you appreciated my post! I was very apprehensive before writing it because I knew we had a number of Democrats between our two classes and I wasn’t sure of the response I would get. And as you and Futuredevildog wrote, I am not out to bash anyone’s political affiliations! I love that everyone has different beliefs! I only get upset when no one practices his or her right to vote!
Zizzi, ahh another fellow Republican? That is always nice to see. Many more than 5,000 people did die under Saddam Hussein’s rule, although I am almost certain that number is the official count of those who died in the bombing of Halabja. But as for the opinions of my family members, I added those to appeal to ethos (AP Lang anyone?). Showing that I wasn’t led to the Republican Party solely based on the opinions of my family, establishes some credibility in my post.
Ziggy, I could see where my defense of the Iraq War could lead the post astray, but I felt it was important to recognize this issue. I definitely could have tied it together better, though. If you could just give me some examples of where you were distracted, that would help me a lot when I write my next post.
Theteach, I saw bits and pieces of the debate. The sections that I did see definitely made it seem as though Obama was on the defensive. I felt as though he never directly answered the questions. As a Republican, certainly my feelings toward him are biased, but I feel as though he needs to watch what he says more carefully, such as his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion. Those few sections I watched, Hillary did not comment much so I cannot really say anything about her…but I think she’ll carry Pennsylvania.
AMEN, SISTER!
And carry PA, she did. For a while I thought Obama would win.
Do you see any difference between the way Obama and McCain are treated by the public and the pundants in terms of their relationship to clergy? The press has not focused on the McCain "problem" as much as they have on the Obama one. They both have a relationship with clergy but it seems one receives more attention than the other.
Post a Comment