“The big difference between Republicans and liberal Democrats is the way each party views people. Republicans see us as individuals and respect our God-given human dignity. To liberal Democrats, we’re not individuals; we’re members of a herd with all the dignity of a cow or pig dependent on its owner for daily rations of hay or slop. Democrats see us as being white or as blacks or as straights or as gays, or as lesbians or as heterosexuals, or as rich or poor, or as Christians or as Jews or as Muslims, or as young or as old, as working or as retired, or as housewives or as career women. They submerge us into pools that define us as members of groups instead of as what we are as God sees us—as any father sees his children—each being different from one another, and each child being a separate and distinct individual with his or her own specific talents and abilities, and all deserving of his love... This Marxist view of human nature embraces group-think, despises individuality, and seeks to eliminate all vestiges of the dignity to which every human being created in the image and likeness of God is entitled. Only the hopes and aspirations of the groups matter, and they matter solely because they create dependency on the state—which seeks to supplant God as the source of all that is good and necessary for survival.” —Michael Reagan
No, actually this is from this week's newsletter of a highly popular conservative site. My whole point was from the perspective that this is the usual and typical conservative perspective that I have been reading for years.
For anyone that doesn't know me, I do my best to not be on a "side", but to find ways to bring people to some degree of unity, to get more things accomplished to the benefit of everyone.
So, I was hoping to get some conversation going from the respective sides of any group.
Misha, do you understand where the author of this quote is coming from? Does it make sense to you what he is saying? What are your views on this quote. if I may ask?
I mostly am trying to stay away of politics cause it is always a choice between bad and worse, and not only in USA. Your quote nicely outlines shortcomings of USA democratic party - but I am sure republicans have theirs, too - and knol touched at least on some of them.
Your broad definition of one party and least said about the other is interesting.
Throw in a bit of chili and pepper and it it would heat both parties up.
That's a nice quote Jewel, but probably a bit outdated. It refers to Bush's republican administration as much I think...
The republican party is the party of buisness, money and the corporations. They are for the rich. Since the rich are a minority, and would lose most elections, they
promote 'we're against isssues' that morons love to get upset about, like abortion, immigration, gays, terrorists,
Iranians, Palistinians the devil and whatever else might
get votes. It is a scam called 'wedge issues' in politics.
They have bankrupt the country. The only thing I find good about republicans is that they keep the democrats from raising my cigarette (sin) taxes.
American political language is thoroughly garbled. We live in the tower of babel. What is is what is not. The conservative perspective you quote is an excellent example. My problem with conservatives is not so much with their philosophy but their hypocrisy. The same goes but to a lesser extent for democrats. Broadly speaking, Democrats favor justice while Republicans favor freedom. Obviously, both are worthy values but need to balanced by the other. The tragedy is that both parties, when push comes to shove now, favor MONEY; justice and freedom be damned. Republicans think they voted for a conservative in Bush but they got a radical: a tax less but spend more; killer of privacy rights; agressive warmonger; consitution abrogator.
I think the quote is horribly biased. Michael Reagan is using polarizing rhetoric to create a vast difference between Democrats and Republicans where there really isn't one. Reagan's mechanism of choice: god. The entire quote is basically saying that Republicans like god and Democrats don't. That in itself would make the quote ludicrous enough were it not for the fact that it also seems to claim that Republicans don't care about voter demographics. I think it would be naive of anyone to think that a politician of any party didn't look at us by our demographics, it's what they thrive off of and how they get elected.
Also, notice how he mentions Marxism as if the Democrats somehow ascribe to be Marxist. I don't know what makes me sadder, that this poor style of argument is still in use today or that it actually works on a large amount of the population.
I think religion is more or less used as a tool by politicians of all parties. It's impossible to tell how much faith or conviction a politician actually has because 9 times out of 10 they're only using it to pander to whatever religious faction they think will earn them the most votes.
sad to say, but it appears the Bush crowd of Christians may have learned that lesson the hard way...or it could just be my limited perspective of what being a Christian means
I have had a few times in the past several years where the big AHA answers about any good the happenings of the world have had on souls has become clear...I wish I could remember those AHAs more often. there truly is a sifting and shifting taking place on the planet...I pray that it will turn out for the best
SparklingJewel, the quote you use from Michael Reagan is so ludicrous it doesn't inspire conversation. I wouldn't even dignify it with a serious response.
From the perspective I try to maintain, it is helpful to "hear" what a particular group is "saying" to get an idea of how groups could better communicate. What you read in a quote comes from your unique and specific background of experiences...what someone else reads in the same quote can be something totally different.
If more people tried to find out more instead of just being judgmental about what they heard someone say, it could help to make the world a different place.
For instance. What stood our for me in this quote, was recognizing how differently people can perceive God and all that has to do with God. I have heard just as divisive of quotes from democrats/liberals as I have heard from republican/conservatives.
So what I try to do, is to find a place of balance; to understand why a particular thing was said and why a particular response was given; then to find any common ground or places where compromise could be found.
For instance, on a hot button issue like abortion ( which I have my own deeply held beliefs about) I try to find what both sides could agree on...and that has been focusing on doing what needs to be done to guide youth away from getting involved in sexual intercourse (and other risky sexual behavior) in the first place. Which is a broad range of possibility...and I don't mean just telling them no, it's giving them other options for individual growth and opportunity for life, like learning new skills to improve themselves. so at least they will have other things to consider about themselves and might think twice about getting involved in risky sexual behavior.
I have found that disagreement is futile and usually leads nowhere unless it can be "channeled" into productive streams of growth and change.
Couldn't you agree with that?
so, looking at it this way, does that inspire any conversation in response to this quote?
I'd say that quotes like this definitely inspire conversation. Personally, I see quotes like this as dangerous preludes to a potential assaults on our freedom and personal liberty, mostly because politicians normally use god to tell you that you can't do something. I think it's the responsibility of every free minded individual in this country, even in the world over, to give their two cents when it goes towards combating something as dangerous as the abuse of the power of religion.
These kinds of quotes have been spoken from all sides of the isle for decades. It doesn't/hasn't become dangerous because there are enough people getting involved and speaking up...which is great! These kinds of quotes come out of both sides consistently from what I read of all sides. Sometimes it is hard to not get stuck in being on a side. But we don't move much as a nation if there aren't enough people trying to maintain a center.
I also see that there is just as much abuse of religion and beliefs thereof as there is abuse of power by religion.
After all that's what this country was founded on...freedom from tyranny by those in power, be it government, religion, etc...
See another quote by Michael Reagan, adopted son of the ex
“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out - they are traitors to this country - and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors - that’s what they are - and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets. How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.” -Michael Reagan
by Ken R. Abell7 years ago
Is the Tea Party movement good or bad for the Republicans in this election cycle?
by Rodric Johnson5 years ago
Why do Southern Democrats vote Republicans into office?Southerns tend to be Democrats by traditions. Why do they tend to vote Republican?
by Credence22 years ago
I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.This is...
by Credence24 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by SheriSapp2 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
by James Smith4 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.