Ideological points that I like about Republicans
In this time of political differences, I would like to mention that I admire two aspects of GOP (conservative) ideology:
1) Conservative ideology acknowledges that different people have different skill sets, and that some people are better than others in skills. I believe that this is accurate, and that a given person -- regardless of her/his upbringing -- will have a genetic predisposition for excellence in, say, the skills necessary to make an engineer, scholar, athlete, and so on.
Democratic Party (liberal-progressive) ideology favors an emphasis on equality, which I of course hold very dearly. The GOP is more realistic, and the Dems' position more idealistic, and I know this as someone whose job is to teach particular skills. There's a level at which one can't teach intelligence, in the same way that in basketball "you can't teach height." The reason I uphold equality so much is because ideology has effects: to say that some are better than others is to prevent some people from striving to improve.
To say that "given enough hard work and discipline, anyone can accomplish their goals" invites curiosity and goal-setting -- it's positive; the word is "equality." The GOP position is negative -- in-equality -- insofar as it forces young people to say, "Oh, I'll never do that," preventing some skills from ever developing. So, from a human resources perspective, the liberal-progressive position would maximize more individuals' abilities, while the conservative position would more accurately assess a person's abilities.
2) Conservative ideology refuses to trust human nature, highlighting its ill effects and negative consequences. It says, "Leave people to their own devices, and you'll get both Alexander Graham Bell and Adolf Hitler."
Liberal-progressive ideology highlights the good that is naturally in people -- this was best enunciated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, John Locke, and the Enlightenment movement. Liberal progressive ideology would say, "Leave people to truly their own devices, with absolute freedom, and you'll get Gandhi."
Again, the conservative position is more accurate, but the effect is to distrust people. One huge example would be how George W. Bush wanted the Iraq War not because of any sensical, rational argument, but because he merely had a strong belief that the possibility of powerful weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could spell disaster for the citizens of the United States. He distrusted Saddam Hussein's nature, and lied and misled the American public to let the invasion occur -- which he thought, surely, was for "the greater good."
By the same token, German military might in, say, 1938, could have been easily constrained by the Allies, strongly due to the fact that the Treaty of Versailles banned the conscription of German males into the military (as well as the production of armaments). It was not until an offensive German military destroyed the militaries of Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Great Britain that they gained the true military superiority that could only be checked by the larger combined economies of Russia and the United States (on the Eastern and Western fronts) -- after a protracted, fantastically gruesome World War II where ~40 million died.
So, the effect of the liberal-progressive ideology is to welcome "peace in our time" in the the Neville Chamerlain-esque sense (who assumed the logic A) if people are rational, and B) and Hitler is a person, then C) Hitler is a rational person).
The effect of the conservative ideology results in an Iraq War, while, in the most extreme case, the liberal-progressive ideology results in more long-term carnage than necessary.
Note: my thoughts are much on WWII, since yesterday my wife and I enjoyed Atonement, a rich historical drama that fully justifies its source novel. The four-minute Dunkirk long shot (no change in camera or cut) is an absolute gem.
No profanes - sacred