Unthinking Democratic Policy versus Unfeeling Republican Policy

Diplomacy has been defined as the art of saying what you want to say and getting away before anyone figures out your intentions.

I chose to state my intent diplomatically.

To political activists of either party, but especially to non-partisan activists, I say "Democrats are dumb; Republicans are cruel."

I refer to the Party policies that affect the gene pool, specifically universal health care.

With universal health care the gene pool quality will deteriorate; without universal health care the gene pool quality will improve.

Democrats value relationships more than they value fitness.*

Republicans value fitness more than they value relationships.*

Oregon's health care plan values both of those and it values economic considerations. When Bush 43's Attorney General Ashcroft sued Oregon to block the policy, the US Supreme Court said the states are laboratories and may develop and implement a variety of policies.

I think America should implement a plan like Oregon's.

Your views?

* Giving effect to these values will affect the amount of empathy and the amount of sociopathy in the population.

Views: 511

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Our technology, knowledge, culture, and memes are part of the package just as much as is the gene pool. If we're supposed to survive by genetics alone, then we should be able to do without clothes, shelter, heating and air conditioning, medicines, and eyeglasses and contact lens, just to name a few things.

Also, "fitness" is quite a narrow value. Forbidding factual sex education in public schools, and curtailing access to contraception and to abortion, are associated with Republicans rather than Democrats, and they make for more reproductive success, for more babies being born. As long as those babies survive to grow up and make enough babies of their own, the quality of life of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

Well put, Grinning Cat.

But don't forget group selection. Nations or regions eschewing public health care or medical research for a disease such a Ebola will be less fit than those who invest in the public's overall health. A pandemic has economic consequences far beyond the loss of less healthy individuals.

In the extreme case where all countries choose not to invest public funds for health care, the entire species is less fit than it would have been, had it chosen to protect itself from contagious disease.

image source

By your rubric (which I think is quite accurate) crossbreed a Republican and a Democrat  and you have an asshole moron. If anything is going to improve for the U.S. citizenry and/or the human species, we may need to look elsewhere.

Bertold, I didn't intend to give my secret away.

My dad was a Demo and my mom a Repub.

I have similar ancestry, one generation removed.

@Freethinker31,

...there is always  the possibility that the haves  could some day be the have nots.

While they are the haves, they are protecting themselves from that future by paying to elect the congressmembers and state legislators who will pass the necessary laws.

What has happened  to American compassion?

The people we did not elect to public office have most of it.

booklover, according to Heather Cox Richardson's recently published history of the Republican Party, Lincoln Repubs were more democratic and equalitarian than today's Democratic Party. After his assassination the vice president he would not have chosen started the changes that gave us the Repub Party we have.

Andrew Johnson's Repubs charged the newly freed slaves with "sponging off the system", and in a few years they were charging all blue collar working people with doing the same.

Uh, I think we just gave them control, or came very close. Some of the people we just elected make Sarah Palin look like a rational naturalist.

...[the Tea Party] will make us a fascist state....

Freethinker, I've heard people who follow politics more closely than I say America has long been a fascist state.

George Mercer, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, said:

In the House of Representatives there is not the substance but the shadow only of representation. This constitution will begin a moderate aristocracy. It is at present not possible to foresee whether it will produce a monarchy or a corrupt and oppressive aristocracy. It will most probably vibrate for some years between the two and then end in one or the other. (September 15)

He couldn't have said America would become a fascist state; the word did not then exist.

Oh! But he could read human nature and the drift of individuals away from democracy and representative government toward oligarchy. That is what Kondratieff saw as he watched the struggles for power in communism, socialism and capitalism. He was put to death for saying such a thing by Stalin. 

I like the way politicians try to fool us and tell us about the "free lunch." Next they tell us how it won't cost anything because "we will get the money from Washington." That's when I know they think we are really dumb because George Washington died in 1799. He wasn't really that rich either.

Michael, I read long ago that GW had been a land surveyor.

If that's true, he would have known:

1) England was reserving the western lands (the Appalachians) for native Americans,

2) If the rebellion succeeded those lands would be available for settlement, and

3) Land developers would need surveyors.

The rebellion succeeded and I understand several founders became land developers.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service