Skip to main content

The GOP: No longer the party of Lincoln

As a progressive, I'll probably receive some flak for this, but the Republican Party was once a great party. This is the party that brought to us the likes of Presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, among others. They were the anti-slavery party. They were the limited government party. In many ways, they were the progressive party. However, as the saying goes, all good things come to an end, and there is no greater example of this than the GOP (Grand Old Party), for the modern-day Republican Party has become the antithesis of what it stood for upon its inception, directly opposed to equality, small government, and progression.

The Republican Party began losing its identity in 1964 when then President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Ironically, more Republicans than Democrats in Congress voted for the bill, but since Johnson, a Democrat, signed it, fairly or not, his party received the most praise for its passage. With this one swoop of a pen, history was forever changed, not only with regard to civil liberties, but also with regard to the country's two major political parties, their identities, and their supporters. "Dixiecrats" began leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP, progressives started leaving the GOP to become Democrats, and the once solid blue South became redder than Rudolph's nose after laying out in the sun for weeks on end. Slowly but surely, the electoral map reversed itself in conjunction with the two parties swapping identities, concluding the gradual transition in 2004.

Ronald Reagan added to this identity change during his time in the Oval Office, especially with regard to tax reform. In Dwight Eisenhower's final year as president, 1960, the Republican's top tax rate on regular income was set at 91%. While that number decreased to 70% when Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were leading the country, we didn't see significant change on that front until Ronald Reagan took the reigns. When Reagan took over in 1981, the tax rate was 69.125%. That rate decreased to 50% in 1982, before dropping to 38.5% in 1987, and bottoming out at 28% in 1988. In less than 30 years, the Republican Party went from being the party of the middle class to being the party of the wealthy; they went from being a party true to its name to a party falsely advertising itself as supportive of a republic, when it was setting its sights on an oligarchy.

Toward the tail-end of Reagan's tenure, right-wing talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh in 1988, started catching fire and moving the party further right on the political spectrum as a result. The advent of the Internet, as well as the inception of Fox News in 1996 continued this trend. Sermons also started becoming progressively more political, reaching a peak when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. Talking heads on the radio and cable news continually told conservatives they were the only sources to be trusted, all others were liberally-biased, while repeatedly feeding them negatively-connotated talking points regarding liberals and Democrats: "Tax and spend liberals," "Baby-killer liberals," "anti-American Democrats," etc. Through this seemingly constant repetition and exclusion from any outside sources, a growing number of self-described conservatives/Republicans started buying into what they heard, regardless of how ridiculous the claim(s) might have been, and disregarding any contrary sources, no matter how reputable they happened to be. This continued on the Internet, as the growing divisiveness of the country prompted many to create politically-slanted sites, adding fuel to the ever growing fire. A number of preachers fed off this as well, to further manipulate people based on their prejudices and fears, making it seem as though the Bible explicitly states the Republican Party is superior to the Democrat Party and it would be unChristian to vote for the latter, largely due to their stance on abortion and equal marriage rights.

It would be naive to not also include lobbyists and special interest groups as a factor in the Republican Party's identity change. While both parties have been guilty time and time again of allowing such individuals/groups to hold sway over their decisions in office, the GOP has been the bigger beneficiary, especially following the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. Believe it or not, both the GOP and NRA were once in favor of the "gun-control" measures Democrats have been attempting to pass over the past several years if that says anything.

We're now in the year 2017, and no matter how many times GOPers want to proclaim they're the party of Lincoln, while they once were, they no longer are. The party that once fought for Civil Rights is now fighting to suppress these individuals' voices on election day. The party that once fought to build and strengthen the middle class is now doing everything in its power to quash it. The party that once stood up for the equality of all is now standing up for the privilege of a few. The party whose former leader once said, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth," has decided, when Lincoln said "people," he really meant "corporations." While the Republicans of yesterday, like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, fought to help more achieve the American Dream, the Republicans of today want no part in that, and have attempted to transform those dreams into nightmares.

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!"