If most Americans are tradition-oriented then why don't Republicans always win?

[Hardkill]

The Republican Party has continuously shifted to the right both economically and socially since the 70s, while the Democratic Party has continuously shifted to the left socially since the 70s and to the left economically since the early 2000s. 

Considering that most Americans are still more appealed to fear, tradition, ideology, dogma, security, and status quo than they are to logic, science, open-mindedness, advanced policies, and reform, then why haven't most Americans always voted for Republican politicians since around the 70s?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Oeaohoo]

Being traditionally oriented doesn’t necessarily correlate to voting for the Republican party. The Republicans might have grown more right-wing but they certainly haven’t become better representatives of tradition. It is the neocon free-market strand of the right which is just as vacuous and subversive as the socialism of the left. Also, the white majority in America is getting smaller (I believe it is around 60% now) and non-white people of a traditional orientation are much less likely to vote Republican.

I would describe myself as traditionally oriented but I would never vote for a party like the “Conservatives” of my country or the Republicans because I don’t think they stand for any real tradition.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

Being traditionally oriented doesn’t necessarily correlate to voting for the Republican party. The Republicans might have grown more right-wing but they certainly haven’t become better representatives of tradition. It is the neocon free-market strand of the right which is just as vacuous and subversive as the socialism of the left. Also, the white majority in America is getting smaller (I believe it is around 60% now) and non-white people of a traditional orientation are much less likely to vote Republican.

I would describe myself as traditionally oriented but I would never vote for a party like the “Conservatives” of my country or the Republicans because I don’t think they stand for any real tradition.

You make a valid point about the Republican Party.

But why don't most non-white Americans who are tradition oriented aren't more emotionally appealed by the Republican party's rhetoric that's based on fear, tradition, ideology, dogma, security, and status quo than with the Democratic party's rhetoric that's based more on logic, science, open-mindedness, advanced policies, and reform?

Most people vote base on emotion and gut feeling and less on higher level thinking and compassion. Also, most Democrats tend to project more weakness than Republicans do, except in the cases of Bill Clinton and Obama. So, why are the Democrats have often been able to compete electorally with Republicans when the Republicans almost always have stronger emotional appeal and come off as stronger than the Democrats?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Oeaohoo]

26 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

But why don't most non-white Americans who are tradition oriented still vote aren't emotionally appealed by the Republican party's rhetoric that's based on fear, tradition, ideology, dogma, security, and status quo than they are with the Democratic party's rhetoric that is based more on logic, science, open-mindedness, advanced policies, and reform?

That’s a bit like asking why Muslims generally don’t support Christianity: most traditionally oriented people are oriented around a specific tradition, not tradition as such; add to this that a significant part of tradition is ethnic homogeneity (remember that the word nation itself comes from the Latin word natio which means “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe”) and it should be clear why non-whites would not be supportive of Republican-style tradition!

[Hardkill]

22 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That’s a bit like asking why Muslims generally don’t support Christianity: most traditionally oriented people are oriented around a specific tradition, not tradition as such; add to this that a significant part of tradition is ethnic homogeneity (remember that the word nation itself comes from the Latin word natio which means “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe”) and it should be clear why non-whites would not be supportive of Republican-style tradition!

So, just because a non-white person in America may be tradition-oriented, it doesn't necessarily mean that they want the all or even many of the specific cultural traditions of America and the status quo of the US government to be preserved. Correct?

But how do you explain why there are about 40% of white christian Americans who vote for Democrats when they know that the Republican Party is always whole heartedly committed to fighting for ethnic homogeneity of white Americans and the dominance of white christian American cultural?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Oeaohoo]

Just now, Hardkill said:

So, just because a non-white person in America may be tradition-oriented, it doesn't necessarily mean that they want the all or even many of the specific cultural traditions of America to be preserved. Correct?

Exactly. Of course this is not the only explanation for what you are describing though. Many people simply vote as they have always voted; some will vote simply because they prefer one candidate (at the local or national level) to another, even if it is for totally superficial reasons; and I am convinced that many vote based on nothing at all!

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

the Republicans almost always have stronger emotional appeal and come off as stronger than the Democrats

I’m not sure I agree with you that the Republicans have a stronger emotional appeal. If anything, Democrats appeal more to the emotional level, or maybe you could say that they appeal to different emotions: Republicans appeal more to emotions of duty, patriotism and national strength, security, ethnic kinship and family, whereas Democrats appeal more to safety, inclusion, tolerance, acceptance of weakness, love and compassion for the excluded and rejected.

[Oeaohoo]

20 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

But how do you explain why there are about 40% of white christian Americans who vote for Democrats when they know that the Republican Party is always whole heartedly committed to fighting for ethnic homogeneity of white Americans and the dominance of white christian American cultural?

Not every white Christian American values ethnic homogeneity above all else. Since the reframing of America’s self-concept that took place with the victorious defeat over fascism and the civil rights movement, many people in this demographic have come to view the advancement of their own ethnic interest as inappropriate and bigoted. Many forms of Christianity today are quite left-leaning and there has always been an element of universalism (the literal meaning of “catholicity”) in Christianity.

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Exactly. Of course this is not the only explanation for what you are describing though. Many people simply vote as they have always voted; some will vote simply because they prefer one candidate (at the local or national level) to another, even if it is for totally superficial reasons; and I am convinced that many vote based on nothing at all!

Okay, I got that.

4 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

I’m not sure I agree with you that the Republicans have a stronger emotional appeal. If anything, Democrats appeal more to the emotional level, or maybe you could say that they appeal to different emotions: Republicans appeal more to emotions of duty, patriotism and national strength, security, ethnic kinship and family, whereas Democrats appeal more to safety, inclusion, tolerance, acceptance of weakness, love and compassion for the excluded and rejected.

I guess that's true in a lot of ways true with regards to Democrats standard campaign strategy.

Though, James Carville, one of the top campaign strategist for the Dems, says that many large areas of America unfortunately perceive Democrats as too urban, coastal, and intellectually condescending, which has really significantly damaged the party's brand. In fact, he pointed out how the progressive wing of the party have really hurt the Democratic Party's appeal a lot with their stupid wokeness and faculty lounge rhetoric.

He said in an interview in a Vox article last year:

"You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like 'Latinx' that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a 'community of color.' I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods. There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not......We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you’re trying to talk around them. This “too cool for school” shit doesn’t work, and we have to stop it. There may be a group within the Democratic Party that likes this, but it ain’t the majority. And beyond that, if Democrats want power, they have to win in a country where 18 percent of the population controls 52 percent of the Senate seats. That’s a fact. That’s not changing. That’s what this whole damn thing is about.......Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It’s hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn’t say this. But they don’t want to say it out loud.......Because they’ll get clobbered or canceled. And look, part of the problem is that lots of Democrats will say that we have to listen to everybody and we have to include every perspective, or that we don’t have to run a ruthless messaging campaign. Well, you kinda do. It really matters. I always tell people that we’ve got to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Yiddish. We have to speak the way regular people speak, the way voters speak. It ain’t complicated. That’s how you connect and persuade. And we have to stop allowing ourselves to be defined from the outside."

 

 

 

[Hardkill]

21 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Not every white Christian American values ethnic homogeneity above all else. Since the reframing of America’s self-concept that took place with the victorious defeat over fascism and the civil rights movement, many people in this demographic have come to view the advancement of their own ethnic interest as inappropriate and bigoted. Many forms of Christianity today are quite left-leaning and there has always been an element of universalism (the literal meaning of “catholicity”) in Christianity.

Well racism and bigotry is both morally and logically wrong and of course that approx. 40% of white christian Americans who vote Democrat are fully aware of that. However, wouldn't the idea of keeping the status quo of white ethnic homogeneity and the hegemony of white America appeal more to the emotions and base instincts of those same white christian Americans than the idea of creating more equal opportunity and equal rights for all races/ethnicities would?

Edited June 27, 2022 by Hardkill

[Oeaohoo]

11 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Though, James Carville, one of the top campaign strategist for the Dems, says that many large areas of America unfortunately perceive Democrats as too urban, coastal, and intellectually condescending, which has really significantly damaged the party's brand. In fact, he pointed out how the progressive wing of the party have really hurt the Democratic Party's appeal a lot with their stupid wokeness and faculty lounge rhetoric.

This is definitely one of the biggest weaknesses of the progressive left today. I would say that this is a sort of failed appeal-to-emotion: evasive phrases like “communities of colour” (of course, this is basically just a way to say: non-white communities…) are designed to create a feeling of safety and inclusion and not box anyone into a narrow ethnic group, but it has the opposite effect because it makes people feel like they will be persecuted if they aren’t up to date with the latest silly vocabulary. When mothering turns into smothering!

7 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

However, wouldn't the idea of keeping the status quo of white ethnic homogeneity and the hegemony of white America appeal more to the emotions and base instincts of those same white christian Americans than the idea of creating more equal opportunity and equal rights for all races/ethnicities?

Not if it is counterbalanced by a stronger emotion which says “if I care about white ethnic homogeneity I am a fascist and that is the worst thing anyone can be! I will lose all of my cosmopolitan friends and maybe even my job.” The base instinct is more toward surviving and being in conformity with one’s surroundings: this sets a different criteria for Blue and Red states.

[Razard86]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

The Republican Party has continuously shifted to the right both economically and socially since the 70s, while the Democratic Party has continuously shifted to the left socially since the 70s and to the left economically since the early 2000s. 

Considering that most Americans are still more appealed to fear, tradition, ideology, dogma, security, and status quo than they are to logic, science, open-mindedness, advanced policies, and reform, then why haven't most Americans always voted for Republican politicians since around the 70s?

The Republican Party maintains its position through lies and propaganda and that is how they have won elections. If you look at the past years Citizens primarily put one party in power when it comes to the Presidency usually for 2 full terms. Then they get tired of how the party runs the country and they put the Democratic President in power for 2 full terms. There have been some exceptions, George Bush Sr, Jimmy Carter, and most recently Donald Trump. Outside of these exceptions once you are in you are pretty much guaranteed a second term. 

When you are in power whatever happens while you are in the seat gets blamed on you. Instead of humanity collectively deciding to take ownership for themselves we like to massive look to some ruler/politician to solve the problems we have. Every problem in society we can collectively solve without government involvement if we come together. 

1. Wealth Gap only exists because American Citizens are too busy fighting everyday over nonsense, or using entertainment/drugs to not pay attention.

2. Only vote for candidates who support what is best for the country as a whole not your individual agenda. 

3. Create a transparent system in which citizens have access to the leaders and are able to hold them accountable.

4. Amend the Constitution to give more power to the public by changing campaign finance laws.

So right now our citizens are just going to vote back and forth between the two parties till either or civilization falls, or we collectively unite.

Together we stand or divided we fall. Either that happens will be for the greater good of the Universe so just enjoy the show.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Razard86

[Yarco]

9 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Well racism and bigotry is both morally and logically wrong 

Have you deeply explored and confirmed this for yourself, or do you just take it as a given from society?

9 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Not every white Christian American values ethnic homogeneity above all else.

I'd go as far as to say that only a very slim majority do. 

You have to never have gone to a church to think Christians are all some racist bigots. They're some of the most accepting and least judgemental people I've met, to a fault. To the point that I don't think they even follow biblical teachings any more by openly accepting LGBT members into their congregations or even to become pastors. Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, even Lutherans are all like this. Race has not been an issue for decades and most churches accept everyone by warping Jesus' "love your brother" type doctrine. Lots of churches are sponsoring Muslim refugees. Most Christians hardly even stand for traditional values like not having sex before marriage any more. 

Only in the Orthodox church and to a lesser extent Catholics are they still Christian in the traditional sense that you guys are thinking of. It's only Catholics at pro-life rallies for the most part, not protestants. I don't know about Evangelicals as that's a pretty uniquely American thing.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Yarco

[Oeaohoo]

4 hours ago, Yarco said:

You have to never have gone to a church to think Christians are all some racist bigots. They're some of the most accepting and least judgemental people I've met, to a fault.

You can even make a very persuasive case that modern leftism and progressivism originated with Christianity:

In its opposition to the Roman, Nordic and Celtic conception of virtus - from the root vir meaning man, not man in general but as opposed to woman, from whence derives virility - and its correspondingly one-sided emphasis on Love over Truth and Compassion over Wisdom; in its subversive and revolutionary character which has slowly eroded the Greco-Roman patriarchal family structure and the ancient Indo-European Cult of the Ancestors: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" and "I do not come to bring peace but the sword"; in its eclectic and syncretistic origins which make of it a sort of proto-multiculturalism - Christianity arose out of the decadence and spiritual chaos of late Antiquity and drew all sorts of peculiar influences from the collapse of the Roman Empire which had grown to encompass almost all of the civilised world - and its corresponding emphasis on universalism and "catholicity" over discrimination and homogeneity; and so on. Not only this, but Christianity replaced the historiography of cyclic decline and involution (which can be found in such diverse sources as the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, the Laws of Manu, the Nordic sagas, Hesiod) of earlier mythology and replaced it with one of linear evolution and therefore "progress" towards Salvation and Redemption in Christ the Messiah.

This is why Christian conservatism and traditionalism is so absurd; you might as well call it "revolutionary conservatism" or "reactionary progressivism"! Anyway, maybe Nietzsche was right to describe Christianity as "the final stages of disease meekly announcing themselves"... 

Edit: Reflecting on it, I am inclined to append the passage from which this last quotation derives because it is so relevant today, particularly in that with his usual prophetic genius Nietzsche predicts a "European Buddhism" as "Nihilism"! What else is the endless spiritual bypassing and "non-duality means I can sit on my sofa and watch Netflix all day" which you find in almost all new-age circles today?

Quote

In these [altruistic] instincts [of pity, self-denial and self-sacrifice] I began to see the great danger to mankind, its most sublime enticement and temptation - to what? to oblivion? - in these instincts I began to see the beginning of the end, the halting, the weary glance back, the will turning against Life, the onset of the final stages of disease meekly announcing itself; I realised that the morality of pity - which spread wider and wider, engulfing and infecting even philosophers - was the most sinister symptom of our European culture which had already become sinister; I realised that it was the devious route along which that culture wended its way to - a new Buddhism? - a European Buddhism? - Nihilism? This exaggerated esteem in which modern philosophers have held pity is quite without precedent; for in the past philosophers were absolutely unanimous as to the worthlessness of pity. I need only mention Plato, Spinoza, La Rochefoucauld and Kant - four minds as different as can be, but united on one point: their contempt for pity.

- Preface to The Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche.

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Oeaohoo

[Hardkill]

16 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

This is definitely one of the biggest weaknesses of the progressive left today. I would say that this is a sort of failed appeal-to-emotion: evasive phrases like “communities of colour” (of course, this is basically just a way to say: non-white communities…) are designed to create a feeling of safety and inclusion and not box anyone into a narrow ethnic group, but it has the opposite effect because it makes people feel like they will be persecuted if they aren’t up to date with the latest silly vocabulary. When mothering turns into smothering!

Not if it is counterbalanced by a stronger emotion which says “if I care about white ethnic homogeneity I am a fascist and that is the worst thing anyone can be! I will lose all of my cosmopolitan friends and maybe even my job.” The base instinct is more toward surviving and being in conformity with one’s surroundings: this sets a different criteria for Blue and Red states.

Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Thanks.

[Opulence]

Republicans still have a major influence. 

 

[Brittany]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:09 PM, Hardkill said:

But how do you explain why there are about 40% of white christian Americans who vote for Democrats when they know that the Republican Party is always whole heartedly committed to fighting for ethnic homogeneity of white Americans and the dominance of white christian American cultural?

These videos below are a more accurate description of what a "younger" Christian church looks like in 2022:

 

 

White, Black, Asian etc. Christians worshipping together like one family.

The "white is better" Christian churches you are referring to are decreasing in numbers amongst Millenials and Gen Z.

This is why white Christians might vote either Republican and Democrat. You can't assume they will always vote Republican - especially Millenial and Gen Z white Christians.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Brittany said:

These videos below are a more accurate description of what a "younger" Christian church looks like in 2022:

 

 

White, Black, Asian etc. Christians worshipping together like one family.

The "white is better" Christian churches you are referring to are decreasing in numbers amongst Millenials and Gen Z.

This is why white Christians might vote either Republican and Democrat. You can't assume they will always vote Republican - especially Millenial and Gen Z white Christians.

Oh wow!

This looks like New Age gospel for the youth. It definitely looks very welcoming to all people of all races/ethnicities and other backgrounds.