Why I Am a Republican and Not a Democrat

Robert Howard Kroepel
Copyright © 2002
New Durham, New Hampshire, USA

Why am I a Republican instead of a Democrat?

While many of my political positions are specific to the State of New Hampshire, they include (A) being pro-gun to enable people to defend themselves and others from criminal, terrorist and military attack, (B) being pro-choice to ensure that pregnant women are not enslaved by State Legislators and therefore the State government by anti-abortion legislation, (C) being pro-embryonic stem cell research to ensure the potential for the relief of suffering of the current and future living, (D) being pro-personal termination [physician-assisted suicide] so individuals who are suffering from terminal or chronic illnesses or disorders can choose Final Relief from their suffering, and therefore their private lives and private choices cannot be controlled by State Legislators and therefore the State Government, and, (E) being intolerant of legislation that would create a de facto State Religion by requiring school prayer, the posting of the Ten Commandments, the teaching of creationism instead of, or along with, evolution, etc.

The Republican general political principles include (A) personal responsibility [for getting what one wants for his family and himself] which requires (B) individual freedoms [to enable the individual to exercise his personal responsibility] which require (C) less government and (D) less taxes.

The Democratic general political principles appear to be (A) fairness and (B) equality.

Affirmative action, turns out to be an example of how an attempt to produce both fairness and equality actually produces unfairness or inequality. Qualified individuals may be denied access to education or jobs when affirmative quotas require minorities who are less qualified to be given the educational and vocational opportunities. The Alan Bakke case proves that when affirmative action is applied less qualified individuals are in fact given unfair advantage and thus an unfair inequality is created instead of a fair equality.

Because the two traditionally largest political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, are theoretically patriots in serving the American society and yet are in fact political opponents, the values of one ought to be reversed in the values of the other.

The Republican values of personal responsibility, individual freedoms, less government, less taxes, ought to be reversed as Democratic values of no personal responsibility, no individual freedoms, more government, and more taxes.

In the case of personal self-defense, which theoretically is supported by both Republican and Democrats, in general, Republicans favor the right to own, to bear and to use personal firearms, concealed, if such is the choice of the bearer, seeing the criminal, and not the gun, as the cause of crime, while Democrats favor gun control, seeing the gun as the cause of crime and not the criminal as the cause of crime, with the result that individuals are less and less able to defend themselves, and others, from criminal attack, thus destroying one of the most effective means of achieving self-defense, and the defense of others, the bearing and use of personal firearms. If an individual is to exercise personal responsibility for self-defense and the defense of others then he must have the individual freedoms to own, bear and use personal firearms, as is favored by Republicans, but if he is denied the individual freedoms to own, bear and use personal firearms then he is denied individual freedoms and the right to exercise personal responsibility for self-defense and and the defense of others. Thus, in the case of personal self-defense, we see in the case of the right to own, bear and use personal firearms the principle of the reversal of the values of one political party by the values of another political party.

I have personal experience in the defense of others as well as self-defense, thus, as Governor of New Hampshire, I would not tolerate and therefore would veto legislation which would infringe upon the rights of citizens to own, bear and use personal firearms, including handguns, for self-defense and the defense of others.

In the case of welfare, in general, the Republican values of personal responsibility, individual freedoms, less government, and less taxes produced legislation to reduce the time welfare is available to able-bodied and able-minded individuals who are out of work and to require recipients to produce serious efforts to apply for and therefore get jobs or to learn new job skills so as to improve their marketability and thus enable them to get jobs while Democrats, in general, opposed such legislation, presumably for Democratic values of no personal responsibility, no individual freedoms, more government, and more taxes.

Thus, in general, I am a Republican because I favor what I perceive to be Republican political principles of personal responsibility, individual freedoms, less government, and less taxes, and I oppose what I perceive to be de facto Democratic political principles of no personal responsibility, no individual freedoms, more government, and more taxes.

I. The Plunder of the Public Treasuries.

James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville both said that the American representative democracy form of government would stand until the citizens learned how to plunder the public treasuries.

There are at least two public treasuries citizens can learn to plunder: the Federal Treasury and their State Treasury.

How do citizens plunder public treasuries?

By voting for politicians who will do one or both of the following:

A. Give welfare to able-bodied and able-minded individuals who have such a good lifestyle living on welfare they are not motivated to work.
“Why should I work when I can sit on my ass and get $___ (?) a week from welfare?” [Overheard in a tavern in Brasher Falls, New York.]

B. Tax the rich disproportionately. [The Robbing Hood government policy]
“The rich aren’t paying their fair share!!!”
“Screw the rich!!!”

General Political Economic Principle: You cannot take money from productive people, defined as people who are working, producing valuable products and services, paying taxes, and trying to enjoy life, love, labor, and leisure, and give that money to able-bodied and able-minded nonproductive people, defined as people who are in fact able-bodied and able-minded but who enjoy a lifestyle from welfare which strips away their motivation to work and therefore their motivation to be productive, without destroying the motivation to work of productive people and thereby causing the economic system to collapse, and, eventually, causing the political system to collapse.

When the ratio of productive people to nonproductive people becomes small, 2 to 1, where two productive people pay for one nonproductive person, and the lifestyles of the productive people become close to or less than the lifestyles of nonproductive people, then the economic system is in danger of collapse and thus the political system is in danger of collapse. When those on welfare are as well-off as those not on welfare, who are working, then the political-economic system is in danger. Some say we are now approaching a productive vs. nonproductive ratio of 4 to 1.

Entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as well as welfare theoretically provide financial assistance to people in need. No one disputes the necessity and fairness in giving money to people who need it, people who are temporarily out of work, who are not able-bodied/able-minded, who are retired, who are living on a fixed income, etc., but welfare should be a temporary help and not a way of life, and productive people should not be overtaxed to pay for nonproductive people, including paying for citizens in true need, and certainly not for paying for able-bodied/able-minded nonproductive people.

II. Republican vs. Democratic Attitudes Towards Business/Businesspeople and Workers.

Political Principle: Democrats tend to favor working people while Republicans tend to favor businesspeople, entrepreneurs, the people who create work for workers.

There has to be a balance wherein workers are treated fairly and businesspeople are given a chance to earn profits.

But when businesspeople are overly regulated by having to provide excessive benefits to workers and are not able to earn what they consider a fair profit, then businesses tend to fail and workers are thrown out of work and the economic system tends to slow down.

Business is competitive. Advantages in products/services should be the main reason why businesses are successful. When governments interfere with competition, by over-regulation of a country’s businesses, so they cannot compete with overseas businesses, then that country’s businesses are in danger of failing and when they fail their workers lose their jobs.

Democrats tend to overly regulate businesspeople.

Republicans tend to deregulate businesspeople.

The business of America is business. If businesspeople are not deregulated, if they are over-regulated, then they will not be able to compete and their businesses will fail and workers will lose their jobs.

However, excesses among businesspeople are not to be tolerated in which they benefit through fraud by over-reporting income and financial security they benefit while workers suffer, or through excessive unfair labor practices wherein workers cannot earn a decent living and enjoy decent working conditions.

General Economic Principle: Businesspeople, entrepreneurs, create jobs; workers do not create jobs, because they do not create businesses, but they do support businesses and therefore enable workers in those businesses to have jobs who may, in turn, be able to afford to support the business in which they are workers. Workers who do create new products/services and therefore create businesses providing those new products/services become businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and no longer are considered to be workers. Restated: Jobs are created by businesspeople, not by workers; businesses and workers in those businesses are supported by other workers who purchase and use [consume] the products and services produced by those businesses and workers.

Example: Steven Jobs and Stephen Wozniak were employees--workers--for the Hewlett-Packard Company when they noticed that computer clubs were spontaneously forming in which the members showed an obvious interest in computers. Jobs/Wozniak wondered if the computer club members would want to own personal computers. J/W created and marketed the Apple II personal computer [there never was an Apple, or an Apple I]. J/W ceased to be workers and became entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and, in the process, created the personal computer industry, which created not only wealth for businesspeople but jobs for workers.

General Economic Principle: Workers should compete in offering their labor. When workers are insulated from competition then they tend to become less productive. States should not have closed shop union laws which require all workers to join unions regardless of their protests. Unions should therefore compete to earn the respect and therefore the membership of workers.

Example: Competitive labor imbalance occurs when workers earning $10 an hour have to buy products/services produced by workers earning $50 an hour [as in the automobile industry] but are not permitted to compete for the $50/hr. jobs [as when automotive labor unions eliminate competition].

If there is ever to be an imbalance in the regulation of businesspeople vs. supporting workers’ benefits, the imbalance, which should only be ever so slight, should be in favor of businesspeople because they create jobs for workers whereas if the workers can stifle the efforts of businesspeople to create demand for their products and services and thus ultimately create jobs for workers then, ultimately, they, the workers, will lose their jobs and destroy their economic security.

I am thus a Republican because I favor the businesspeople who create the products and services which consumers buy and therefore which create the jobs for workers and thus stimulate the American economy.

III. Yankee Values vs. Gimme Values

Yankee Values = Independence and Ingenuity -> Personal Responsibility -> Individual Freedoms -> Less Government -> Less Taxes.

A Yankee is therefore a person who has the independence and ingenuity to look to himself for the personal responsibility to get what he wants for his family and himself for which he needs individual freedoms which require less government and therefore which result in less taxes.

Yankee values require Yankees citizens to vote for Yankee politicians who enable them to exercise their personal responsibilities by ensuring their individual freedoms with less government and less taxes.

Gimme Values = Dependence -> No Personal Responsibility -> No Individual Freedoms -> More Government -> More Taxes.

A Gimme is therefore a person who gives up his independence and his ingenuity and his personal responsibility and his individual freedoms by becoming instead dependent upon government to give him what he wants for his family and himself which requires more government and which requires and results in more taxes and the need to vote for Give-Ya/Got-Ya politicians who will give him what he wants.

Gimme Values require Gimme citizens to vote for Give-Ya/Got-Ya politicians who give Gimmes what they want in return for their political support, creating a political philosophy thus: “I’ll give ya what you want if you gimme what I want and vote for me and I therefore got-ya.”

The destruction of the Roman Empire included the plunder of the Roman public treasury by Gimme citizens who voted for more and more Give-Ya/Got-Ya politicians, the Roman Senators, who gave them more and more of the dole, welfare, until the productive citizens were over-taxed, defined as taxed so heavily their lifestyle was less than the lifestyle of Gimmes/nonproductive citizens on welfare, and the productive citizens lost their motivation to work, their belief in the value of the Roman political system, their belief in the value of the Roman State/Nation, and their patriotism, their motivation to fight for their country, all of which caused the Roman economic system, the Roman society, and the Roman State to collapse. When the Huns invaded Roman territory there were few patriots willing to defend the country.

Republican values are, for the most part, Yankee values; Democratic values are, for the most part, Gimme values.

Among Republicans, the impulse is to encourage people to be independent of government, using government primarily as a means of organizing American society (A) by providing law and order and (B) defending it from attack by terrorists and political/military foreign enemies.

Among Democrats, the impulse is to create a dependent class of Gimmes who will vote for Give-Ya/Got-Ya politicians who will not hesitate to plunder the public treasury to give the Gimmes what they want in exchange for their votes, with the possibility of the destruction of the American democracy as feared by James Madison a Alexis de Tocqueville.

I am therefore a Republican because I am a Yankee, not a Gimme, and I perceive Republican political values to be Yankee values while I perceive Democratic political values to be Gimme values.

IV. To Restructure the Republican Party.

The Republican Social Conservative Agenda

The Republican Agenda can be summarized by this quote from President Ronald Reagan:

“Because ours is a consistent philosophy of government, we can be very clear:  We do not have a separate social agenda, a separate economic agenda, and a separate foreign agenda.  We have one agenda.  Just as surely as we seek to put our financial house in order and rebuild our nation's defenses, so too we seek to protect the unborn, to end the manipulation of schoolchildren by utopian planners, and permit the acknowledgment of a Supreme Being in our classrooms just as we allow such acknowledgments in other public institutions.”

To restructure the Republican agenda by accepting the need to “to put our financial house in order and rebuild our nation's defenses” and “to end the manipulation of schoolchildren by utopian planners” but not to “seek to protect the unborn” (A) by outlawing elective abortion, which would deny women their reproductive rights, which would deny them their liberty, and which would effectively enslave them and prevent them from exercising their moral right to protect themselves from the risks to their health and lives of unwanted pregnancies, or (B) by changing the US Const. 14th Amend., which currently reads “All persons born ...” as a definitional statement of ‘person’ = ‘born’ for the entire Amend., to read “All persons born and unborn ...” as a definition of ‘person’, which would eliminate the right to elective abortions but which would create chaos in the American system of Jurisprudence in which the principle of ‘similarly situated’ allows the distinction between adults/majors and nonadults/children/minors and, for the 14th Amend., the distinction between ‘born’ and ‘unborn’ and thus enable priorities to be set between/among the lives occupying the same body when a woman is pregnant, at present, the priority being for the born/living woman, so when legal issues arise priorities are set and decisions can be made, to not to seek to “permit the acknowledgment of a Supreme Being in our classrooms” which would violate the US Const. 1st Amend. prohibition against the establishment of a de facto state religion and which would prevent individuals from enjoying their right to freedom from religion, and to seek to remove “the acknowledgment of a Supreme Being” from “other public institutions” including the removal of the phrase “under God” from the American Pledge of Allegiance, the presence of which violates US Const. 1st Amend. and individuals’ rights to freedom from religion.

I thus am a political moderate.

I am willing to be a Republican political Message Candidate to encourage debate among Republicans concerning practical politics, meaning the political necessity for abandoning the politically impractical excessive conservative values of outlawing abortion and forcing religion into public institutions which offend Republican, Democratic, and Independent moderates and which therefore prompt those political moderates to vote for non-Republican political candidates, and which, in turn cause Republican political defeats. I do not consider losing elections because of principles to be a virtue. Political influence, power, is achieved and exercised only through winning elections, and impractical politics prevents the exercise of this obvious political principle.

Thus, for these and all other reasons cited, I am a Republican and not a Democrat.