Rules of the Madhouse Part Two: For Republicans

Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States!

Don’t think that Republicans are going to escape my critical eye.  No one here can ever call me a partisan after this.  On Sunday, I will have Part Three posted on my blog at Christian Fearing God-Man, and part three will basically explain the idea behind these posts as a whole in case the meaning is lost on anyone.

Prepare yourselves!  The Rules are coming for you!

Rules of the Madhouse for Republicans

1.  Democrats are inherently evil:  This is rule number one because you have to know exactly who your enemies are.  The Democrats–vile creatures who hate God and everything white–will stop at nothing to destroy America and subjugate every freedom-loving person in this country.  Their primary goal is to create a society in which the poor–who deserve to be poor because they’re all inherently lazy–are supported by hard-working Americans through a seizure and redistribution of their wealth.  They love Communism, they are all Godless atheists or misguided Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.  Their every breath is devoted to destroying you and your liberties.  Somehow, by destroying America they will ensure that they live long and prosper sustained only by the sheer energy of your soul.  Hate them and everything for which they stand.

2.  Republicans are inherently good:  Your Republican political leaders–the rightful heirs to the throne of liberty–only want to help you succeed and prosper.  They want to make sure that “traditional,” Judeo-Christian values are upheld because that will somehow ensure your financial success.  And because of that–because they champion your causes and make sure that your pockets are properly lined with valuable American dollars–you must vote for them and keep them in office at all costs.    If you don’t vote for them, then America will become a Godless, Communist, totalitarian state.

Rich people, many of whom are your Republican leaders, simply cannot afford to have their taxes increase, and the Party will protect your rich brethrens’ tax rates.  It’s okay that you pay 30% in taxes a year, because the rich people are paying much less.  Fair is fair, and Republicans are going to make sure it stays that way!

3.  Facts are very important:  Whenever you debate one of those detestable Democrats, make sure that you back up your opinions with hard facts.  Those facts must support exactly what you’re trying to prove, and they must come from credible sources.  Credible sources include, but are not limited to: any statistic that shows that most people think like you, anything that is direct opposition to Obama, and any factoid that comes from a credible media outlet (Fox News, Ted Nugent, the NRA, and of course Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh).

4.  Facts are not important:  Democrats know your rules about facts, so they come out with “facts” of their own.  Most of the time, any factoid or statistic presented by a Democrat is a blatant lie or half-truth.  However, sometimes the Democrats will come up with a fact or statistic that is technically “true,” but completely contradicts all of the facts you presented.  Don’t worry!  You don’t have to refute their facts at all.  In fact, you can completely ignore that they even presented facts to you.  Just pretend that they didn’t say anything at all, and instead insult their intelligence.

Tell them that they are just part of the “Left-Wing Conspiracy,” and that everything they spew from their mouths is just theory and conjecture.  Most importantly, shift the argument onto the person and question their motives and reasoning for even debating with you in the first place.  The Truth is plain to see, so they must be absolutely bonkers if they are denying what you understand so clearly.  Oh and don’t forget: even if you can’t disprove their facts, they’re probably lying anyway and their sources are definitely not credible.

5. Compromise is out of the question:  We simply cannot raise taxes on the super wealthy by even 1%, because if we do then we’ll scare them off.  They’ll stop investing and destroy the country that they rely on for their market.  Any addition to the deficit is a bad thing.

We simply can’t allow abortions in any shape or form because that decision should be left up to the government and NOT the pregnant woman.  We also cannot compromise on gay marriage, because that will obviously destroy the nation.  People are not allowed to choose what morality they follow, because all law should be based on the Bible.

Even though we are the most technologically advanced military on the face of the planet, we cannot allow one single cut to the defense budget.  Waivering on any policy point, no matter how practical it might be, is an affront to liberty and a betrayal of the Party.

6.  Values are the key to America’s survivalChristian values, to be specific.  If we let the gays marry the people they love, then we’re headed for fire and brimstone.  All the poor people are poor because they had children out of wedlock.  The American family is the institution of stability for this country!  Nevermind all of those hard-working single-parent homes that succeeded, the poor people are poor because they had kids out of wedlock and because they got divorced!  This country is going to the toilet, and it will eventually be destroyed, because we are too free with sex, our language is too vulgar, and we’re teaching evil evolution in schools!  You are free to choose how to live your life, so long as that choice is within the bounds of good Christian morality.

Do not ever support a candidate that demonstrates anything less than the highest commitment to Judeo-Christian values, because someone like that obviously cannot be trusted.

7.  Rule 6 does not apply to Newt Gingrich or the super wealthy:  Republicans like Newt Gingrich are not Bill Clinton, so whatever they do in their personal life is totally their business and does not have any bearing on their ability to hold public office.  And yes, charity is mandated by the Bible, and you should be happy to help those less fortunate, but if you’re super-rich you need not worry about that.  It’s your money, so you can hold on to all of it without fear of divine reprisal.  You’re rich, you don’t need to worry about things like “charity,” and “compassion.”  All you need to worry about is that you’ve got an endless supply of Beluga caviar.

8.  Ideas are meaningless:  “Ideas,” are just tools used by the pointy-headed academics to fool young people into betraying good-old traditional values.  The only thing that matters is what works.  Our ideals, however, are the shining example of what human society should strive for.  Never let a Democrat dissuade you from our Party’s ideals!

9.  All Democrats are Socialists:  Well duh!  They want to rob from the rich and give to the poor.  They want to tax the rich into oblivion!  They want all means of production to be controlled by the state.  They want to destroy every aspect of choice and liberty you thought you had.  Any time a Democrat mentions “social justice,” or even breathes a word about alleviating the suffering of those less fortunate, that is code for “Communist Manifesto.”  The massive amounts of wealth the super-rich have accumulated is theirs to do with as they please, and they have every right to be upset at the notion that they should help those less fortunate.  Any such utterance that suggests the rich should be taxed more and sacrifice like the rest of us is a clear indication of a Socialist agenda.

10. Don’t think: just vote:  The Party leadership is smarter than you.  You don’t have the time, energy, or education required to understand these complex issues.  Just sit back and believe what the Party tells you, because Republicans are the true patriots.  A patriot would never, ever mislead you.  Vote for anyone who has (R) next to their name, and you can be sure that your future is safe!

About Jack

Jack Camwell has written 14 posts in this blog.

I spent four years as a cryptologist in the Navy, and I graduated summa cum laude with a BA in History and Political Science. My research focus in American history was the characters and theory of the American Revolution. In political science I focused on American government, the Constitution, and the political theory of how democratic thought gave way to totalitarianism in the 20th Century. I don't claim to know everything, but I do know that it's possible for two smart people to arrive at vastly different conclusions. To know that opens one's mind to the true pursuit of Truth. Afterall, "an unexamined life is a life not worth living."

In Case You Missed It...

16 comments to Rules of the Madhouse Part Two: For Republicans

  • Dragonconservative

    I think that the part about Newt Gingrich was a little unfair. Republicans do vilify him for his numerous affairs, and they were one of the reasons why he did not get the nomination. Also, with all due respect to you, Mr. Camwell, I have to disagree with you on the parts about facts in each of these “Rules of the Madhouse” posts. Those who belong to each side of the political spectrum believe in the facts that are presented, provided they do adequate research. However, they do not simply ignore true facts that support the opposing point; indeed, they simply counter said facts with others that DO support their own point.

    • Apparently the Republicans in Georgia seemed to think that he was okay. There were enough Republicans who said “Newt was super successful in congress,” to say that there was a large hypocrisy streak going on.

      As far as the rules about facts, you have to look no further than Political Realities to verify that I’m right to call people out about that. The other day, Ted “Country Thinker” Lacksonen wrote a piece about how Paul Ryan was a terrible choice for VP.

      Ted provided a bulleted list of facts that supported his point, and it wasn’t until some 20 posts later that people started presenting facts to refute him. In fact, I called people out almost right off the bat because they didn’t provide a single shred of evidence that supported their points.

      They basically just attatcked his motives for writing the piece, and sneered at him for being a Libertarian.

      http://www.ldjackson.net/paul-ryan-as-vp-candidate-ends-romneys-presidential-aspirations/

      See for yourself.

      So like I said, people generally only care about facts when the facts support their viewpoint. If a fact contradicts their viewpoint, they will either completely ignore it and instead attack the poster, or they’ll call the facts blatant lies or half-truths.

      I will say that Republicans generally tend to ignore the facts (that’s what happens to me when I debate with Republicans) while Democrats tend to say that the facts are lies or grave distortions of the truth.

      The point is that when two people debate and produce hard facts that prove their points, who is right? My suggestion is that the “right” answer is somewhere in between, but most people won’t admit that because of rules 5 and 10.

      If you haven’t read part one of this series, I strongly urge you to do so. There’s a reason I made this a two-part thing.

      • Dragonconservative

        Mr. Camwell, the Republicans in general think that Newt is “okay” because he didn’t do a bad job in Congress. It’s his personal life that is messed up.

        Now about facts. While I admire Ted for airing his often controversial views, his piece on Paul Ryan was way off target. I saw the bulleted list that you discussed, and I think that those facts were taken out of context. However, there is NOTHING wrong with that. Ted simply stated the facts in a way that best supported his point, which is simply an efficient and effective use of facts themselves. He didn’t lie. He didn’t make up anything. He simply told the truth in a way that best supported his position. Kudos to you, Ted. However, in the comments, I thought Martin did the exact same thing that Ted did; he used facts, or more accurately some facts, to support his own point. There is no place there that avoids facts. It’s a pick-and-choose thing. Overall, to end the long-winded nature of this comment, I think that most (reasonable) debaters don’t avoid the facts. They simply go off the ones that best support their position, and undermine the facts that don’t.

        • Martin wrote: (sorry to use you Martin)

          “Disappointing. It seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. I met Gary Johnson and he is sincere, but too wacked out over one issue, in my view. I really don’t give a damn about pot or pot-heads. But I’d not make it the centerpiece of my philosophy, either.

          “As for spouting liberal talking points on Ryan, you do a great job.

          “For me it (sadly) boils down to this:

          – Can the country survive 4 more years of Obama? (no)
          – What happens when Obama appoints the next several supreme court justices? (all three branches lost for years to come, if there are years to come.)
          – Is Romney/Ryan better than Obama/Biden? (yes – not as much as I would like, but yes)
          – Pragmatically, is there any other choice? (no)

          “Now, I am all for supporting the best candidate and fighting for them in the primary. I relish voting against establishment politicos – I have voted against many. I’ve even voted for some libertarians. However, when push comes to shove, we have to do the best we can. It sucks as an answer. But an Obama victory will mean immediate catastrophe.

          “Again, very disappointed in you. I enjoy your view points, but you’re dead wrong on attacking Ryan.”

          Show me where the facts are in that statement.

          About 12 posts down, Ted calls everyone out because they didn’t refute him with facts. He was right to do so, because everyone pretty much just attacked his views and said that he’s “wrong.”

          • Dragonconservative

            Where he talks about the potheads. Gary Johnson has campaigned heavily on the basis that marijuana should be legalized. Though Martin did attack Ted overly much, he still used facts.

          • Dragonconservative

            A lot of what you’re saying is true, Jack. But in my life, most people debate using facts, but mostly the facts that support their position. That’s all I’m trying to say.

            • Well, I don’t think that marijauna is the centerpiece of his entire philosophy, but that’s a matter of perception I suppose. I mean, the legalization of pot thing is a small portion of his platform.

              Here’s the thing. Yes, people on both sides use facts to back up their arguments. BUt often times those same people don’t know how to handle a situation in which BOTH sides of the argument are supported by facts.

              So instead of reconciling that, they simply dismiss the other person’s facts as half-truths, misconceptions, or plain lies.

              Seriously, go wade in the much over at Crooks and Liars. They think that even the AP is biased. If there was a poll conducted by Gallup that showed that 95% of Americans hated Barack Obama, they would say that the poll was skewed in someway.

              But if you showed them a poll from Gallup that said 95% of Americans think guns should be banned in all forms, they would nod their haughty heads and say “see, the facts don’t lie!!!”

              People have used the same tactic against me. They call my facts “lies,” promulgated by the biased (insert fact source). Or they’ll just ignore my facts entirely and tell me what a “selfish, immoral fascist”** I am.

              **Actual words used to describe me.

              • Dragonconservative

                Selfish, immoral fascist? Ouch. However, I live in New York, and I hold the most vilified position of being the most vocal conservative in my school. I’ve been called worse. Haha

  • Jack, you have a great vehicle with this method to point out a lot of problems created by self-deceptions on all sides, and if you or anyone else can better flesh out some of the points you’ve raised… Damn! I liked your overall rules for being involved in American politics much better, but I do have one major concern with all of them.

    Whenever I see any of the political arguments you’ve highlighted being played out, I feel like an inmate on death row or the old woman in John Prine’s song praying for an Angel from Montgomery (slang for “a pardon”, usually last minute from a death sentence). I feel the need to pray for an angel that much more upon seeing your position to support and defend compromise as you do in each of these posts.

    That need to pray is because you are right about an unwillingness to compromise being a significant problem in coming to a solution in all the examples you use, however, it’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be. For one, some of those issues aren’t true compromises. Some may be better described as false dichotomies, people defining two things to be absolute in an either/or argument where one of those absolutes must lose.

    You either hold that our Constitutionally protected individual rights are absolute and inviolate or they are not. If not, they are therefore subject to the whims of the majority and those wielding power to peck away at by defining a moral belief, ideal, or political position as a greater absolute. A significant number of state delegations to the construction of the Constitution quite obviously saw individual rights in terms of an absolute. Indeed, elevating those individual rights to inclusion in the bill of rights was necessary for its ratification as it was the only means they had of preventing a powerful central government and those of the states from usurping the rights of the less powerful.

    I even have concerns with Country Thinker’s support for Gary Johnson (as a libertarian) for Johnson proclaims the wise value of cost/benefit which served him well in New Mexico that it is the way to go at the Federal level. I’m not saying that Johnson is a bad man or a poor choice, but he either fails to understand that cost/benefit is exactly how the Feds have been using the governmental regulatory process to further peck away at libertarian values and our individual rights or he knows and is just using it anyway because it sounds really, really good on the surface to small-government minded people. Indeed, all Federal agencies have to apply cost/benefit to their regulation making process by law. Deep down, we all might feel something is wrong whenever a new rule or regulation violates anyone’s individual rights, but we just can’t put a finger on it, for they say the benefits to all society are much greater than the toll on a few individuals losing something usually defined as privilege, not equated to their individual rights in any way. That makes it possible for us to accept, and thus we continue to add bricks to our self-imposed prisons through such compromise.

    This post of yours was a real good start to opening some minds, and I hope you continue with this build upon and to possibly better refine your argments about compromise if you now may see a need to. I, as the old woman in John Prine’s classic, lament:

    Just give me one thing that I can hold on to;
    for to believe in this living is just a hard way to go.

    • Thank you for that response Frank. Well reasoned.

      I see what you mean about some things not being a compromise. I understand that in some ways there is no middle ground: it either is or it is not.

      I do understand, though, that compromise is an extremely hard thing when there are competing interests that are ideologically in direct opposition to each other. Compromise is never easy, but I get the feeling that today, “compromise” is a dirty word.

      YOu’re right to say that the individual good should never be subborned to the “greater good.” The common good should always be the aim, and I think we can reach that with some comrpomise.

      I would respond more fully, but I have to run for some Friday evening fun =)

  • Yay for fun. Go out and grab it by the horns!

    This certainly doesn’t require immediate response, just continued critical thinking applied to future discussions as you refine arguments either for or against. I do see even individual rights have some limitations, such as eminent domain vs property rights and determining fair value to the individual to allow progress on projects for the “greater good”.

    Since I brought up one minor point I have with Ted’s support of Johnson as an example, I should add that you are correct that his excellent analysis of Paul Ryan was spot on. I suppose I failed to weigh in here for I too am tired of getting beat up by Tea Party type small-government fiscally conservative Republicans who throw up that false dichotomy of being for more Obama where they throw their principles to limit federal power and cut spending under the bus if you openly criticize the “only” alternative the Republicans offer which is really not that much different. Worse yet, look at the Republicans in the House giving up more power to the Presidency with their recent passing of S.679. You can add that to the list.

  • Rule 6 does not apply to Newt Gingrich? No surprise, because this sounds like it was written by Newt. And we know how popular he is in Republican circles.

  • Sorry it has taken me so long to comment, Jack. Time seems to be very short for me these days. Thus, I am writing this in the wee hours of the morning.

    I agree with much you have written. I realize some of it was sarcasm and we have had some of this discussion before. You know how I feel about raising taxes on anyone, period. I am not in favor of the practice, at least until we get our spending under control. When we have accomplished that, then I would be open to discussing it. Until then, I will stand firm in my belief that raising taxes is the last thing we need to do. If that puts me under Rule #5, so be it.

    I happen to agree, in part, with Rule #6. Values are important in our society. I am a Christian, but there are other values that hold value. One of the main problems with the society we live in today is the lack of values. In no way am I declaring single parent households are a bane on our society. I know many of them who are single parents through no fault of their own. They are doing fine, as a result of their hard work.

    I do agree that one of the basic foundations of our society is a two-parent household, ie. a man and a woman. Yes, I realize the divorce rate is high, etc. That doesn’t change the fact that a two-parent household, with the proper values (there’s that word again), plays a strong role in our society. Just because many people have perverted that by their actions doesn’t negate the role it can, and should, play.

    • Thank you for the reasoned response.

      I will agree that values are important, but where you and I part ways is on the notion that values are important for the survival of our society, particularly Christian values.

      American society will endure regardless of how “moral” it’s people are. If America does collapse, then it will be because we can’t balance our budget, or because the people will get fed up with their DC overlords and tear the country apart. In my mind, virtue has more to do with our success than values. when justice, prudence, courage, and fortitude go away, then I think we’ll collapse.

      As for increasing taxes, you and I both know that raising taxes on the rich is not going to scare them off. They depend on the health of the American economy just as much as anyone else, and they know that if they were to stop or slow investment, they would be tanking us and themselves.

      You know me: I’m not calling for a huge increase in taxes on them. I’m all about compromise. We could leave their capital gains alone, entirely, and increase their income tax by 10%. And when I say “rich” I mean the really rich. I would count the traditional (at least I think it’s traditional) $400k/year club. Going down to $250k is way too low, because we’re hitting the realm of small businessmen and women whose businesses would suffer substantially from such a hike.

      HOWEVER, that tax hike would have to be met with a significan budget cut in an area that can afford it.

      That Romney paid on average 13% (Romney’s own words, not mine) while other middle class families paid upwards of 25% is completely ridiculous.


  • Trackbacks: