Last updated on January 4, 2021
Recently a TPD listener asked me an excellent question. She inquired, “Could you make a page on the TPD website that shows a side-by-side comparison of what Conspiracists believe versus what Skeptics believe?” To me this sounds like a good idea. This could be something like a Quick Guide of podcast topics that we’ve covered (and plan to cover) in list format, including brief, in-a-nutshell opinion statements from Brett and yours truly. I’ll certainly take this up with Brett, and we’ll see what we can do.
The point of bringing up this idea here, though, is to discuss what the listener really meant by her question. You see, as I spoke with her it became clear that what she’s really after is a comparison table of what Republicans believe versus what Democrats believe. Interestingly, though, she wasn’t making this distinction. What I mean is this: She had conflated conspiracy theorists and Republicans.
A number of thoughts struck me in rapid-fire succession. But rather than jumping down the rabbit hole in the moment, I closed the conversation (politely I hope) by saying that the idea was now officially on board here at TPD HQ. And it is.
Now I’m sitting here, post-conversation, thinking that I better write down some of my thoughts before they evaporate. Mainly, I’m wondering the following: (1) Do people these days think that all conspiracy theorists are right-wingers, as in Republicans?! ; and (2) What are the perceived differences between Republicans and Democrats?
Let’s go…
Republicans = Conspiracy Theorists?
This is what my late grandfather would call a Humdinger. I think it’s pretty clear that there is indeed a decided effort in the Media these days to typecast Republicans as conspiracy nuts, and vice versa. This strikes me as exceedingly interesting. In part because I know that although I’m considered to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy guy, I am definitely not a Republican as the term is currently be defined. Also, since the Media is basically our Ministry of Propaganda, it means that someone must be benefiting from this story board.
Please don’t accuse me of a circular argument on this point. Calling the Media out on their propaganda peddling is not a “conspiracy theory;” the Media is, by definition, conspiratorial since it involves secret planning by groups to do things that are unlawful and harmful. Take the example of QAnon. Wikipedia (the Media) calls this a “disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory” and states that “No part of the conspiracy claim is based in fact.” This is Propaganda 101. Here’s how it plays out: A real situation exists – in this case it’s evidence for some evil-doing by people associated with the Democratic party – and people start talking about it, word starts leaking out. In order to quiet the situation, shills enter the dialog to discredit the conversation with insane add-ons – in this case it’s the claim that Trump is a messenger of God Almighty sent to vanquish the demonic Deep State. Beautiful. This is like claiming the Apollo moon landings were faked (truth) based on a conversation you had with Bigfoot (added by a shill). Upon hearing something like this, most people will dismiss the whole thing in its entirety. The media, of course, counts on this. But I would respectfully suggest that we take pause and make sure we’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people that can see right through this kind of thing, right? I hope so.
Is Trump a genuine irritant to Washington insiders? Yep. Was he chosen by God, like a modern-day Moses, to free his people from tyranny? Nope. Is the media trying to associate the Republican party with conspiracy quackery? Yep. Do we fully understand why the media is doing this? Nope.
We have to be able to discern these things or else the Elite are going to continue to eat Our lunch. We also have to ask ourselves and others (out loud! openly!) about who’s benefiting from these Media-fueled soap operas, these pronounced associations between the political right and so-called conspiracy theories. Who benefits from casting Donald J. Trump as J.R. Ewing?
Differences between Democrats and Republicans
So what are the perceived differences between these political parties? Although we’ve been bombarded by political commentary in 2020, it strikes me as odd that many people (the aforementioned TPD listener being but one) are asking this question. Perhaps this is due to the propaganda, the focus on personalities rather than actions. Perhaps this leaves people to wonder – appropriately, I might add – what these people and political parties really stand for. As I’ve noted in a previous article, Trump and Obama look about the same on paper if we assess them on their actions while in office. But the Cult of Personality seems reluctant to disclose this.
In trying to describe the differences, it’s tempting to fall into the trap of going point-by-point, as we’ve been trained to do. By this I mean getting into the purported ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans on the “main issues” such as economics, foreign policy, taxation, social issues, etc. But I’m not going to go at it this way because it’s like trying to shoot a moving target.
My late grandfather would call this a Humdinger too. He was a staunch Democrat. But the Democratic party of his time no longer exists. When he was a young adult in the post-war era, Democrats claimed to represent America’s working class, of which he was decidedly a part. The “working class” back then meant, for the most part, factory wage earners in big cities and industrial states. These folks were taught to have populist views on economic matters (yes to Social Security and Medicare, etc.), but conservative views on social matters (generally supportive of medicine and science, pro marriage and family, most were Catholic and went to church, etc.).
[Side note: Because Joe Biden is so ancient and feeble-minded, you can sometimes catch him slipping up and falling back into his old Democrat schtick. His old PR script kicks in and he starts rambling about how he grew up shoveling coal in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The poor guy doesn’t realize that there’s no audience for this stuff anymore. The hipsters in the crowd seem thoroughly confused by these rants, as evidenced by their head tilts and scrunched brows. They may not even know what coal is. Pure entertainment, if you ask me.]
Fast forward to today, and it’s obvious that the Democratic party has morphed into an entirely different creature. The party is no longer propped up by labor unions representing factory wage earners. Instead it’s funded (almost exclusively) by the banking establishment and Silicon Valley. Gone are the days of “class struggles” where workers’ strikes and labor groups were used to push forth political and ideological agendas. Nowadays we have “power struggles” where “community organizers” and “social justice warriors” are used to do the dirty work. And what is the dirty work, you ask? That’s supposed to be a secret, comrade.
All this said, I’m not trying to pick on the Democrats for their shapeshifting ways. They don’t hold the patent on dirty dealings or pretending to be something other than they are. The Republican party has morphed plenty as well – perhaps in the same nefarious direction.
Breakdown
Back to the perceived differences. Instead of the moving target trap I mentioned up above, I’m going to attempt to tackle this another way, from a helicopter view. So below is my executive summary of perceived differences between Democrats and Republicans. Sounds official, right? Well, it’s not. It’s just my opinion. It’s here for you to look over, accept, reject, love, loathe, whatever. You’re certainly invited (as always) into further discussion in the Comments area so we can all engage on this.
Modern Democrats at-a-glance, as reckoned by “Phil”
- The “Democrat” moniker is meant to remind us of the word “Democracy.” I think most Democrats really do like the concept of democracy, where every voice counts and voting on any issue should occur by a show of hands. Unfortunately, a true democracy would, by definition, exclude the voices of all minority groups. Since it seems that most Democrats wish to champion the rights of minority groups rather than suppress them, I think they need to be very careful about being tricked into supporting changes that promote “true democracy,” e.g., calls to abolish the Electoral College, etc. I worry that some Democrats may not understand that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, and that “democracy” is an ideology, not a practical form of government.
- Many Democrats believe that the government is benevolent and always strives to do what is best for the people. This child-like trust has been so often and repeatedly abused that I have a difficult time understanding how anyone could continue to believe it. But it seems they do. And it goes even deeper. It seems that many Democrats believe that the lives and welfare of everyday people can be better managed by the government or “social scientists” than by people themselves, and they’ll willingly pay higher taxes, vote for further government growth, and obey all rules without question in order to prove their position. Although this sounds like a do-gooder’s stance, like the position of “someone who cares,” I think there are at least two big philosophical flaws with this way of thinking: (a) it’s extremely patronizing due to the built-in assumption that people are sheep that require a shepherd; and (b) it absolves people from their social responsibility and de-personalizes charity, which makes people less compassionate rather than more compassionate, i.e., “The government is doing something about the homeless situation, so it’s not my problem.”
- The Democratic party is associated with Liberalism. The tenets of Liberalism are supposed to be the following (underlined), but I’ve entered the contrary beliefs of current Democrats in <<double brackets>>:
Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; Open to new ideas. <<Many Democrats have been taught to (a) take an “I don’t want to hear it” stance when presented with information contrary to the party line; (b) be quick to label and suppress, with almost religious zeal, “different” views as potentially dangerous conspiracy theories; and (c) socially condemn behaviors and opinions of certain racial/class/identity groups (usually those that are considered socially privileged) while exalting those of other racial/class/identity groups (usually those that are considered socially underprivileged), regardless of the integrity of such behaviors and opinions. >>
Supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. <<Many Democrats do agree with this, so no argument here. However, I will say that “social welfare” is a loaded term and it’s quite easy for people to be tricked into believing that morality can be legislated (as in “if there enough laws in place, racism will cease to exist”) and/or supporting policies that end up having the opposite effect as intended (as in urban housing that creates more despair than it fixes, and so on). To steal a phrase: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.>>
Supporter of political and social philosophies that promote individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. <<Confusion over the idea of democracy is discussed above. “Civil liberties” is another loaded term. To some it might mean the same as “individual rights” or personal rights that are protected from unjust governments or authorities. To others it might mean subjecting oneself to laws that are considered to be for the “good of the community.” I think most Democrats subscribe to the second definition. This can be problematic because it begs the question: Who decides what a community is and/or what might be good for it? Unfortunately, the standard answer is usually “a committee of experts” or something along those lines. Dreadful. The remaining Liberal concepts – individual rights, and free enterprise – are currently at odds with the Democratic party line. For many Democrats, any mention of “individual rights” brings to mind a bunch of gun-wielding hillbillies that are ignorant and/or greedy and/or have a complete lack of consideration for others. (Never mind the gun-wielding hillbillies that overthrew the tyranny of the British Crown a while back.) Free enterprise is not supported under current Democratic ideology. The belief is that “government regulation” is better than free market principles in curtailing corporate greed. In fact, the answer to almost any social or economic problem is to inject more government involvement or oversight, and to gladly support higher taxation to do so. (Yes, I said “inject.”) Never mind that the thing we now call a “government” is itself a greedy corporation.
Modern Republicans at-a-glance, as reckoned by “Phil”
- The “Republican” moniker is meant to remind us of the word “Republic.” I think Republicans really do like the concept of a republic, where power is held by the people and their elected representatives. The trouble is that many big shot Republicans have come to prefer that the power be held a considerably more by elected officials, and considerably less by the people. After all, they know where the seafood fork goes in a formal place setting, and so they must know what’s best for the proletariat. It should be added that saying “elected officials” nowadays is putting it gently. Saying “appointed officials” would be more accurate. Everyday Republicans seem to be either oblivious to this or willing to ignore it. Great pride, bordering on nationalism, is derived from concepts like “freedom” and “liberty” and “Old Glory.” All the while, the Great Country that’s meant to preserve and promote these concepts is not the mighty oak tree that it’s assumed to be. It’s been allowed to rot from within while Republicans continue to stand around it clapping and cheering.
- Same as many Democrats, many Republicans believe that the government is benevolent and always strives to do what is best for the people. I’ll repeat: This child-like trust has been so often and repeatedly abused that I have a difficult time understanding how anyone could continue to believe it. But it seems they do. The problem with the Republican party is that it’s much less honest than the Democratic party about how it goes about supporting government growth and encroachment into the affairs of individuals, and thus it seems more insidious on the Republican side. At least the Democrats say out loud that they are going to raise our taxes and blow it all on useless government programs. Republicans say the opposite, that they support smaller government, trimming the fat, draining the swamp, all the while shoveling money as fast as they can, deficits be damned, to support government growth. Republican elected officials also have a pitiful track record for lining their pockets, enriching themselves by legislatively supporting corporate and foreign interests. Democratic elected officials run this game too, but for some reason (any guesses?) Republicans get called out on it more often by the Media.
- Republicans are associated with Conservatism. The tenets of Conservatism are supposed to be the following (underlined), but I’ve entered the contrary beliefs of current Republicans in <<double brackets>>:
Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. <<Most Republicans do seem to agree with this, so no argument here. The trouble comes when traditional ways of thinking and doing things are, well…wrong. What many Republicans do not understand is that when they look around the living room of their mind, most of the furniture has been placed there by someone else. What I mean is that Republicans are just as susceptible to propaganda as Democrats, and possibly more so. Nationalism becomes absurd when it’s in support of one’s own oppressors. Cries of “Just get a job!” becomes an ineffective argument against the Welfare State’s insidious free ride when there’s no acknowledgment that jobs can be of wildly varying quality. Tax subsidies to support the building of a new Amazon distribution center in Anytown, USA? Republicans cheer, “Yes! Hooray! That’s job creation!” Well, yes, it is indeed creating jobs, but these are mostly unskilled, minimum wage positions. Contrary to what many Republicans might believe, a low unemployment rate is not an indicator of economic health. For one thing, it ignores wage slavery. [By the way: Chances are that the building of an Amazon distribution center gets cheers from Democrats too, due to Amazon’s arrangement to purchase electricity from industrial wind and solar projects. This desire for the appearance of being “green” is nothing more than corporate virtue signaling. Industrial-class wind and solar projects have nothing to do with producing clean energy, and everything to do with siphoning tax dollars.]
Favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. <<Most Republicans agree with this line, I’d assume. The concept of socially traditional ideas is discussed above. But religion could probably be noted, specifically the strange alignment between Christianity and the Republican party in this country. But I really don’t have anything to say about it other than it’s “interesting” and seems to be at odds with many Republicans on the street, and certainly most Democrats (who seem to prefer worship of The State to worship of any specific deity). Free enterprise is supported under current Republican ideology, but only on paper. The unspoken specter and presence of government oversight over business is like the Republican party’s dirty little secret. They just can’t bring themselves to step away because there’s too much money in it. Private ownership is similar – Republicans are quick to pay their respects in the form of lip service, but they’ll gladly pass legislation that confiscates personal and private wealth. Again, they won’t step away because there’s too much money in it.
Phil’s Two Cents
I’ve referred to all these scoundrels, collectively, as Republicrats in a previous article, and I think there’s strong evidence to show that they’re all playing on the same team. But I understand that this is not the common view. I wonder if this year’s political contentiousness has obscured people’s sight of the real Enemy? I worry about this. And who or what is this real Enemy, you ask?
In a word, I’m going to say our enemy is this: Fascism.
There it is. The F-word. Talk about Humdingers.
There’s much more to say about fascism as a stand-alone topic, since it runs deep and wide, but I’m going to leave that for future articles. I hope you don’t feel tricked by the title of the article you’re reading now. I promise you it wasn’t click bait. Everything written here is directly related to fascism – I just didn’t explicitly call it so.
It’s New Year’s Eve, so I’m going to sign off without further ado. It’s nice to have a brand-new year ahead of us, if only in principle. I wish you all well in 2021.
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment