Skip to main content

The Republican Party - the party of symbols and slogans

I've been both flustered and fascinated by this. Why is it that it seems symbols and bumper-sticker slogans hold such greater value to conservative Republicans than to liberal Democrats? Why do they spend so much time caring that a symbol of a cross be displayed in as many places as possible? That they sport an American flag on a shirt or other articles of clothing? That drivers know via a sticker they support the troops, believe in freedom, and love God? I've never understood this and with every election that passes, it appears to be occurring with more frequency as the Republican Party moves further and further to the right.

To outsiders, the American flag is just a piece of cloth, which showcases stars and stripes and the colors red, white, and blue. To Americans, this piece of cloth holds greater significance than to the outsiders. However, I often times wonder how many people whom sport the flag so frequently on clothing and the like actually think about why they are doing so. It's felt as if the flag has been a symbol, a code word for "freedom," without thinking about what it actually took to attain said liberties. In actuality, it's just a piece of cloth, unless it truly means something to an individual, and I often times wonder if many people whom plaster the flag all over themselves so frequently do so simply because they've been told it's patriotic, as opposed to it actually meaning something to them personally. The more one tries to outwardly prove something to others, the more I have to wonder if it's all for show. Wrapping oneself in a flag doesn't make a person patriotic. Yelling to the world that one is patriotic doesn't make it so. One has to prove this through actions backing up said words, and it takes far more than dressing like a symbolic piece of cloth to do this.

With the cross - again, to outsiders, it's just a piece of wood. To Christians, it holds far greater significance than that. But why do so many focus their attention on this symbol being displayed ubiquitously? If a person wears a cross around his or her neck, does this mean he or she is a Christian? No, not necessarily. If a person has crosses spread all about his or her home, does this mean the person is a Christian? No. Again, people can yell that they're a Christian on national television and can live in a house they shaped as a cross, but unless their actions back up these words and symbols, they're pretty meaningless.

It's nice to say we support the troops through bumper stickers, but what are we actually doing for the troops to show we support them? It doesn't mean much to a soldier fighting overseas to protect our freedoms that a person driving a Ford Taurus in Topeka, Kansas has a sticker placed on the back bumper of his or her car which says, "I support our troops."

So why has it felt like the Republican Party has become more and more taken by symbols and slogans through the years? Why has it become of greater importance to tell people they're patriotic, Christian, and that they support the troops than to actually illustrate this? Words and symbols hold very little value on their own unless there is meaning and substance behind them. I wish more people would understand that. The words "I love you," no matter how much a husband relays those three words unto his wife, mean absolutely nothing if he beats, lies to, or cheats on her. The words "I love this country," "I am a proud Christian," and "I support the troops" mean little to nothing unless they are backed by action.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"