Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:43:07 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: not very, plus analysis of strategy

In article <1992Aug21.114958.27122@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
> I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
> frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
> someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
> country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
> in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
> narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
> country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
> any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

	The above can be heard from just about any political organization. 
Substitute "politcally correct actions" for "family" and your favorite leftist
for Mr. Bush, for example.  (Oh, and the leftist party for Republican, of
course :)

> However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time. 
> A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
> disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
> make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
> not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
> woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
> albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
> especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the

	Hitler did not support any religion.  The Nazi movement was largely
athiest in nature.

> support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I

	What support there was came from two camps:

antisemitism
anticommunism

> talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
> while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
> are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
> group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
> entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
> abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
> heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
> difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
> on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
> 'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
> 'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
> has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
> that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
> need another demagogue with too much power.

	Bush isn't even remotely like Hitler.  Bush is a bigot, and largely
ignorant of alternative lifestyles, but has an attitude of ignoring those
groups that he disagrees with.
	His sound bites are to convince the right wing that he's still on their
side, despite all that stuff he has to say about civil rights :).

	As far as "majority" goes, he's using statistics to show what he wants
people to see.
	If someone asks "should gays have special rights" most USAians are
likely to say no, which gives Bush his statistic.  But if you asked the same
group "should gays have less rights than everyone else" most USAians would say
no again.  But the Republicans don't ask that second question.

	If you could phrase a question like: "should gays have the same kind of
protection as other minorities when it comes to ensuring their rights as
cizitens" you'd find a majority saying yes.  The problem comes when the
question implies "special" rights.

	Usually the economic performance/promise of the Republicans has helped
overshadow the archaic stance on civil rights.  But with Bush's dithering the
economy into stagnation, and the far-right assuming all those votes in '80 and
'84 and '88 were for *them* and *their plans*, it's become clear who is really
going to be behind Bush this time.

	Almost every right-of-center Republican I've heard talk the past 8
years or so has said something akin to "the majority of the voters said they
wanted us to..." as if all those voters were voting for things like religous
issues, school prayer, etc.  Most of the people voted with their pocketbooks in
the '80s.  The other issues just were not as important as that.  The mistaken
impression that a mandate for *all* conservative ideas was given has led to the
abandonment of the Republican Party by a large number of people.

	Women's rights, gay/lesbian rights, civil rights, anti-WOD, etc. voters
are not going to vote with their pocketbooks this time.  Nor will those who
don't trust Bush to keep his word.

	The question is, will that be enough to cause his defeat?  Given the
40/40 split (Republicans and Democrats have a 40% core they get every year),
and the fact that the winning party need only secure 11% of the rest, it may be
enough to cause his defeat.  Let's assume that each of those issues will only
represent 1% of the voters.  Also that most people voting for the above things
will already be supporting the Democrats.
	If the Republicans lose just 3% of the people, they'll lose the
election.

	Either side can get 5% of the 11% by one-issue themes: taxes, crime,
etc.  If Bush loses 3% of that 2nd 5% there is no way he'll win.  He'll only 
have 40% + 5% + 2% = 47%, giving the Dems about 51% (and 2% to minor parties).

	Back in '80 and '84 the Reagan campaigns used this 40% + 5% + at least
6% of the rest formula to pinpoint their support, get the message out to the
undecided, and carry the election.

	The 40% core was joined by
	5% single issue (crime/defense/etc)
	and 5+% of the remaining undecided primarily due to economic concerns.

	Bush can't use the economy this time.  Family values won't cut it. 
About the only thing that can win him a majority of that last group would be a
pledge to:

1) cut spending across the board until the budget was balanced
2) increase payments on the debt to decrease it by at least 50% over four years
3) promise to cut taxes enough to spur the economy, thus raising revenues

	He's proposed 1 and 3, and alluded to 2.  Clinton has promised 2, but
wants to raise taxes to do it, and is unclear on how the cuts will be made
(except for referring to "defense" at every opportunity, like that is a
limitless budget item).  So the only question, as Mr. Bush even puts it, is 
"whom do you trust"?

	And upon that issue will the election be decided.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!