Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 1 decade ago

Suppose I was to tell you that I am a Republican?

But I am not pro-life. I think Roe v. Wade came out correctly and should be upheld for the lifetime of our government, and perhaps even expanded upon.

But I am a Republican.

I approve of the graduated income tax; I do not want to be held responsible for extremists such as Ronald Reagan and his ideas about small government and reduction of taxes. I think trickle-down economics is foolhardy - we should have learned our economics lessons from FDR. Bush's tax cuts were disastrous for our economy, and will take decades to fully recover from.

But I am a Republican.

I believe in the separation of church and state, and think religion has no business using state resources or influencing politics. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are extremists who do not represent Republicans, and anti-Republicans should recognize that. I think that gays should have the right to marry, and it's only extremists who say otherwise.

It's unfortunate how some have hijacked the political party's name, but I am a true Republican.

I support gun regulation, perhaps even to the extent of rescinding of the Second Amendment (the NRA is a fringe group, and does not represent all of us). I think the economy would do best if we put more of the burden on high-income taxpayers and injected more into the economy in the form of what some would unflatteringly call 'pork barrel spending' but I would call 'public works programs' (I cannot be held responsible for McCain, the Bushes, and Reagan; I am my own man). I think unions are critical to a free market that assigns honest value to labor if their negotiating opponents are also organized in corporations (anti-Republicans must understand that Republicanism is whatever I define it to be, not the product of the party's actions).

I am a Republican.

For some reason, some might ask me 'why.' This is odd, since it is so obvious: Republicanism is the belief that the slaves should be emancipated, as established by the party's founder, Abraham Lincoln. Anyone who isn't a Republican, thus, must be pro-slavery. While I may have some minor disagreements with some of the party's leaders and some of its modern actions, the important thing is that all Republicans are pro-emancipation, and so all of us who oppose slavery should support Republicans.

Do you agree with this statement? Do you agree with the obvious parallel? (And, for the record, I am no more a Republican than I am a feminist.)


I have a sneaking suspicion that a couple people here might be surprised to learn that Jonathan Swift wasn't a cannibal :)

Update 2:

"The fallacy in your argument is that slavery in America is no longer a reality except in extremely isolated cases (see arrests for involuntary servitude), while gender inequality remains a reality, often to the detriment of women."

That's true, I suppose, but it's not too difficult to slightly modify the metaphor so that it's relevant - while slavery was addressed about as succinctly as women's suffrage, racial inequality has endured at least as powerfully as gender inequality - so one could claim that Republicanism is about racial equality, then (so all opponents must be racists, instead of pro-slavery).

The point, of course, is that both movements truly don't seem to be about these things anymore, as is evidenced everywhere by both modern actions (in the form of legislation) and modern influential speakers for the movements.

11 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You might find this an interesting read if you think Lincoln was pro-emancipation (in his heart at least):

    Key excerpts:

    Here he's retracting the emancipation of slaves ordered by a Union general:

    "And further, that neither General Hunter, nor any other commander, or person, has been authorized by the Government of the United States, to make proclamations declaring the slaves of any State free; and that the supposed proclamation, now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void, so far as respects such declaration."

    Here he hasn't quite made up his mind about the emancipation concept, as if it's strictly up to him--big time grand-stander, this President Lincoln:

    "I further make known that whether it be competent for me, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the slaves of any State or States, free, and whether at any time, in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the government, to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field."

    And finally, he's offering Confederate states money if they themselves would like to maybe one day emancipate their slaves if it's not too much trouble--big balls this President Lincoln had on him:

    "Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system."

    ...knew there was another one: General Fremont also emancipated slaves prior to Lincoln's official order and was relieved of his command by Lincoln as a direct result:

    "Frémont imposed martial law in the state, confiscating secessionists' private property, and emancipating slaves.

    President Abraham Lincoln, fearing the order would tip Missouri (and other slave states in Union control) to the southern cause, asked Frémont to revise the order. Frémont refused to do so, and sent his wife to plead the case. Lincoln responded by publicly revoking the proclamation and relieving Frémont of command..."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Connor
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No I don't agree with the statement. Being Republican doesn't mean you have to agree with EVERYTHING the party usually does. I mean I'm gay and a Republican. I support equal rights for all.

    However saying that you a Repubican because you are anti-slavery is immature and pubecent. Sorry but it is. Calling yourself a member of a party because of ONE belief is immature, and a little uneducated. You are also calling everyone else out there who isn't a Republican a racist which is also immature. Grow up, as you can see Abe L. hasen't been a president in some time now. That's not longer what being a Republican needs.

    You are not a Republican at all.

    Why don't you leave the satire up to Swift. He was much better at it than you.


    • Login to reply the answers
  • RoVale
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Your views are more like the Republicans of the 1970s before Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and the party took a hard turn to the right. It was, after all, during a Republican administration that abortion was legalized, Title IX was passed, The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were enacted, and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment was passed.

    Source(s): I remember it.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The fallacy in your argument is that slavery in America is no longer a reality except in extremely isolated cases (see arrests for involuntary servitude), while gender inequality remains a reality, often to the detriment of women. Once all of those are resolved, feminism will cease to be an organized movement and fade into an ingrained belief.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Angela
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    We are coming up on year three of Obama's term. Bush is no longer in office, and the Dems could have voted against it and stood their ground if they really were against it. Furthermore, you do not raise taxes during a recession, and certainly not on the edge of a depression. Obama has gone out of his way to hand your money to cronies, is brazen and not even hiding it, and when you decide to throw a tantrum, you blame the Bush tax cuts? Amazing. Furthermore, there is a simple solution. First, a tax cut is NOT giving something to someone, it is allowing them to keep MORE of what they personally earned. The money did not belong to the government first. Second, why is it that the left only wants to tax people in a certain bracket so disproportionately? That is greed on your part not to mention idiocy as the government will still just spend beyond its means and then come back to the trough for more while giving you mere crumbs.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well...I am a republican, when it comes down to it...I support more republican polices then democratic. I prefer a smaller government, a strong military, dont agree with the gov health care plan, and I want the gov staying out of our daily lives, economy and market places except when absolutely necessary.

    But I am pro choice, I very strongly support separation of church and state(to the point I dont want to hear the word god in any political setting), I am pro gay marriage, and gun regulation.

    So maybe your point is lost on me...and other young more socially liberal republicans.

    and I'm an feminist...and I voted for John McCain. (and I still think he is the better man)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No, I don't buy the point you're trying to make.

    If Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can be Republicans, so can you.

    Source(s): Not a Republican nor a feminist. Not a liberal, either.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Daniel
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Supporting current republicanism is not the same as supporting emancipation of slavery. They share the same name, but not the same ideals or values.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well, I think I liked your question better before you made a point to state that you are not a Republican, just to be sure that no one mistakes you for one. Because if you are not with us you must be against us.

    Actually, I think you make an excellent point, and would just love to hear you pose it to Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, I don't think he'd get it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Brevity, man. Brevity.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.