Republican Platform: Is it Social Darwinism?

[SixNein]

Is the republican party platform essentially social Darwinism?

Today's republicans strike me as a group that wants to return to the 19th century. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong?

 

[Char. Limit]

I can summarize the Republican party platform in four points:

1. Taxes are too damn high!
2. Gun control is too restrictive.
3. Abortion is wrong!
4. Gay people are evil!

Now I won't debate on whether any of these points are BAD or GOOD. But I think that they form the core of the Republican party platform. Whether it's social darwinism or not, that's up to you.

 

[russ_watters]

Neither of those posts make much sense. They seem to be a cluster of half-thoughts.

First of all, Social Darwinism is not a political platform, it is a theory on how people's brains work and their social structures naturally organize themselves. If you mean the Republican party uses Social Darwinism as a principle on which to base their platform, fine: explain the connection with examples and logic. Discuss! Secondly, the Republican party is not a single entity - it doesn't have one platform. Every candidate for President has their own and the party will essentially adopt one platform when one candidate is nominated. The Democratic party is a little more unified in that they have a President from their party, but even then he may or may not have a clear adjenda that he's pushing and that other prominent Democrats are following. Third, gross mischaracterizations aside, Char, if you want to know what a certain Republican's platform is, look at his website. I rather suspect you have those items very poorly ranked/weighted. And last, pointing something like this out about the Republicans implies something about the Democrats. Explain how you think they differ.

SixNein, you can't just dump a half-thought on the forum and expect it to turn into a productive thread. You need to post a full explanation of what your point is and justify it with facts and logic. That's the only way to start a productive discussion and it is required by the forum rules.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What has social Darwinism got to do with returning to the 19th century? What has the Republican Party platform got to do with either of these?

 

[turbo]

IMO, the Republican party is self-destructing, in respect to the upcoming '12 elections. That's too bad, because the US needs a second (even if non-descript) "pretend" party to stay functional.

Gingrich? Not a chance with women.
Romney? Not a chance with Southern conservatives.
Perry? Not a chance with people with more than two brain-cells, and his own party would disown him in a second for being a former (gasp!) democrat.
Bachmann? Even republicans should shy away of that level of crazy.

What do we have left? Is Palin going to jump into the race? Is Huntsman going to surge in the polls due to his post as Obama's ambassador to China? I fear that the Republicans have packed their tents and retired.

 

[PatrickPowers]

Is the republican party platform essentially social Darwinism?

Today's republicans strike me as a group that wants to return to the 19th century. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong?

Surely you jest! We would greatly prefer the 17th century.

 

[daveb]

I think by 19th centruy he means laissez-faire capitalism, which is part of social darwinism, but, yes, to pigeonhole all republicans does everyone a disservice.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What has laissez-faire capitalism got to do with the 19th century?

 

[dacruick]

What has laissez-faire capitalism got to do with the 19th century?

I have no specific knowledge about this but it is a certainty that transactions were much less regulated in the 1800s, if regulated at all.

I'm still not sure exactly what this has to do with the republican party though.

 

[Evo]

The mentors have decided that the OP lacks clarity, and doesn't meet criteria for posting.