Robert J. Elisberg asks what he calls 50 Easy Questions to Ask Any Republican, apparently in an effort to reduce said Republican to a conversational puddle. While I consider myself to be pretty independent-minded, I am a registered Republican, and I didn't find his questions to be very challenging at all — or interesting. I suppose it might be different if I felt I had to support every single action or statement of the Bush administration, but like most people, my views are somewhat more complex than that. I can certainly say that President Bush has made mistakes, and I actually didn't vote for him in 2000 before he had ever been President, but I did vote for him in 2004, and would likely vote for him again if the U.S. Constitution allowed for a third term.
Generally the questions reveal a startling ignorance of what most Republicans actually think, which is surprising given that "Republican talking points" are apparently so widely available.
The ability to see the negative points of someone and still support them is a valuable one, and the only way to ever cast a vote for anybody — rather than casting a vote against somebody else. In 2004, I didn't vote against John Kerry, I voted for George Bush. I rather get the idea that a lot of people who picked Senator Kerry's name on their 2004 ballot may have done so to cast a vote against George Bush, which doesn't seem to me to be a great way to accomplish anything in politics. I understand that others disagree, but that's what makes American politics interesting.
So I saw the fifty questions, and I decided to pretend that a friend had taken Mr. Elisberg's advice. He suggests that people should carry the list in their pocket and pull it out any time "someone begins quoting from a Republican talking point memo." The irony of that suggestion may escape Mr. Elisberg, but perhaps not. Perhaps he's being deliberately ironic.
I've taken the liberty of responding to each question with a question of my own, which proved to be the most difficult part of this exercise. Unlike many party faithful on either side, I have made many efforts to understand why people believe what they do, so I already know the answers to a lot questions I might otherwise want to ask my invented questioner. In addition, I have no desire to convert anybody to the Republican Party, since I'm not especially eager to be there myself. I think it's the better party of the two, sure, but not the party I would create were it up to me.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
Wow, that turned out really long.
2 - Lisa McKay
Really long, yet really entertaining and well-done, which excuses its length.
3 - Sam Jack
"In other words, why do we have state, county, or city governments at all, if the federal government is responsible for local events like hurricanes Katrina and Rita?"
I don't know that I would term those hurricanes local events. The federal government did have a responsibility.
4 - Phillip Winn
By definition, those hurricanes were local events, since they weren't universal. New Jersey wasn't hit by them. Chicago wasn't hit by them. Boise wasn't hit by them. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were. Therefore they are local events.
As far as whether the federal government had a responsibility, that's an opinion, Sam, and a very common one, but not a universal one. Historically it's been the minority opinion, in fact.
It's a deeply-ingrained principle in conservative Republican thought that the federal government simply does not have the right to take taxpayer money from Seattle, Los Angeles, or New York residents to give to residents of the Gulf Coast. A very famous story involving Davy Crockett helps to explain how a lot of Republicans feel about this sort of localized relief.
Since the fed has granted disaster relief assistance to other areas under similar circumstances, then it seems that they've created an obligation on themselves to continue doing so, which is part of where the opposing viewpoint comes from.
Of course, individuals, insurance companies, and city and county and state governments all should theoretically bear responsibility first, but that seems to often be forgotten in the rush to find someone *else* to take responsibility for everything.
5 - Michael J. West
I'll just touch question 1, because I like it and because I know it infuriates people like Arch Conservative:
What were the Top Seven best things that the Clinton Administration did?
Balanced the budget, allowed gays in the military, welfare reform, signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, signed the Brady Bill, halted ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, initiated the only downsizing of the Federal government in recent history, and maintained the greatest period of economic prosperity in American history.
6 - Phillip Winn
An excellent answer, Michael. The typical Republican will undoubtedly disagree with you on the merit of allowing gays in the military or the Brady bill, and dispute the credit for balancing the budget and welfare reform, and maybe even dispute both the credit and the factual assertion of your economic prosperity claim, but your list is very much in keeping with my own, and I like it quite a bit.
A much more interesting question to me is my followup to question 32: What the the Top Ten worst things Democrats have done to America? I wish that the reverse question had been asked of Republicans, but if you'll ante up, I think I'll answer the unasked question anyway. :-)
7 - JohnD
I want to address #13. The idea that marrige rights for same-sex couples is a "threat" is something cooked up, not by gay rights activists, but by social conservatives. The idea that marriage is being "redefined" is also something cooked up by social conservatives. Measure sold to the public against the "redefinition" of marriage have been subsequently used to claim that same-sex couples ought not have rights.
California's Prop 22 is a case in point. Sold to the voters as a way to allow California to not recognized same-sex marriages performed in another jurisdiction, its backers have subsequently attempted to use it to block California from offering domestic partner rights or independently permitting same-sex marriage. Let us not allow these people their lie. They're trying to sugar coat an argument that gays are second-class citizens. If you want a definition of a word, you go to a a dictionary. If you want to discriminate against a group, then you apply strict scrutiny. Questions of "protecting marriage" are a fraud.
The "traditional definition" of marriage was one in which the woman lost all identity and became part of the husband's property. Until the mid 19th century, American women who married non-citizens lost their citizenship. Women could not own property. This is the traditional definition, with hundreds of years of weight behind it. I say good riddance to the traditional definition. But if we're going for the traditional definition, I say that we go all the way, and not just redefine it while shutting out same-sex couples.
And, finally, there's your counter question: "Should a Christian minister be required to perform ceremonies that violate his convictions, such as gay weddings?" Good question.
No. Christian ministers, like clergy of other faiths (rabbis, priests, imans) share the religious freedom we all possess. Clergy should not be obligated to officate at any ceremonies. If they think the couple is unsuited for one another, that would be enough. When they sign the marriage license, they are acting as civil servants, but it is a minor aspect of their role. (The European solution is for couples to have a civil marriage, signed by a government official, followed by a religious wedding ceremony, if the couple desires one.)
You hit upon an important point here, since religious conservatives try to frame this issue as one of religious freedom. However, they get it backward, as they are attempting to use the state to force their religious principles on others.
This leads to a closing question, just as you closed with one:
Should clergy be forbidden from officiating at same-sex wedding ceremonies simply because it does not accord with the religious beliefs of other faiths/denominations? If a society the protects religious liberty, should Religous Group A tell Religious Group B under what conditions they can perform marriages?
8 - Nancy
I thought the article was confusingly written: half the time I couldn't tell which were the questions, and whether or not they were multi-part questions, and what parts were the answers. I wish it had been done a little more clearly.
My main impression was that someone has a bugaboo over Rumsfield arranging their daughter's wedding. Was that one of the original questions? Seriously?
9 - zingzing
i think it is a metaphor for iraq nancy. the article could use bold text to differentiate questions from answers, as many of the answers end on a question.
editor!
10 - Phillip Winn
Nancy, I thought that the spacing should provide enough differentiation -- all of the original questions are numbered, while any non-numbered paragraphs are mine -- but I will go back and add some formatting to see if I can improve things.
11 - wow
its amazing how you can say all these things. proof once again that its not the american government thats the problem but rather all the people in the country.
12 - Phillip Winn
JohnD, I can honestly say I've never heard any Republicans or opponents to same-sex marriage refer to to same-sex marriage as a "threat" or suggest that their own marriage is "threatened" by the possibility. I've only ever heard that label used by supports of the measures suggesting that conservatives feel "threatened." Your mileage may vary.
In general, I find your comment to be loaded with as many assumptions and broad generalization as the questions and answers above, which I suppose is fitting, but disappointing. This is a complicated issue on which many people have many different opinions for many different reasons, and people often support or reject ballot measures for different reasons without agreeing or disagreeing with all of the ways in which that measure may be used.
One bottom line on which I think *most* reasonable people agree is that the government should not be discriminating against people for any cause. The federal government currently has somewhere north of 700 regulations that do, in some way, discriminate againt those who are not in a heterosexual marriage. That should stop.
Beyond that, honest and intelligent people disagree. Marriage is currently treated primarily as a civil institution, but has a long history that predates most civil societies, and so the issues and definitions are complex. People have very real concerns about how to resolve discrimination, and what doors are opened when the government set the definition for societal structures that it then becomes illegal not to recognize. Dismissing those concerns as "fraud" leads to a situation in which decisions are made and enforced by fiat, without popular support, and we've had enough years of Roe v. Wade to know that's unpleasant.
13 - Phillip Winn
Nancy, I have used bold combined with numbers to set off Mr. Elisberg's original questions, and bold without numbers to set off my questions in response. My answers, then, are the non-bold parts. I hope that helps with clarity.
14 - Phillip Winn
Wow, it has long been a principle of the United States of America that government is "by the people, of the people, for the people." (That's a quote from Abraham Lincoln, by the way, the first Repulican President.) The distinction between "the American government" and "the American people" is largely a false one. The nature of a representative Republic -- or any form of democracy -- is that a certain number of people will always feel that they are not well-represented, but we generally have the government we collective choose, and we are the government.
All in all I'm not 100% sure whether it's the questions or answers to which you object, which is interesting in and of itself.
15 - MCH
"In World War II, how long after the official surrender of the Axis powers did we actually finish fighting against insurgents in Germany and Japan?"
Comparing our mission in World War II with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is so typical of the keyboard warrior crowd who've never actually served.
16 - Phillip Winn
MCH, 50 questions from me, 0 answers from you?
Of what is that typical?
17 - JP
This is very well done, and I admire the thought and civil tone of your writing. It is calling for a lengthier rebuttal than I can write in a comment, so I'll have to post my own. But here are some "Easy" examples:
1. "What do you think should be the standard for our withdrawal from Iraq?" Milestone based; the milestones should be determined by the "boots on the ground." America has had ENOUGH of un-measurable and non-specific goals--ever hear the term "SMART"?
2. "If the President or U.S. Congress is responsible for rebuilding New Orleans, are they also responsible for improving downtown Dallas or Suburban Chicago?" Rebuilding after an engineering-failure-caused disaster and "improving" are two entirely different things.
3. "I assume that smart energy executives would probably want to maximize their profits over the long-term. What should be the goals of America's energy policy?" How about setting policy to encourage the most efficient use--and sustainability--of limited resources? Shouldn't government policy support the country and its people, rather than the profitability of specific corporations to which elected officials have ties?
4. "Do you believe that irresponsible actions should always be balance by federal action to remove the consequences of those actions?" Do you believe that one should repeat the mantra of "personal responsibility" regardless of opportunity? For that matter, do you believe every person in this country has equal opportunity?
5. "Is there a theoretical top end to the income tax level you'd like to see?" Is there a theoretical top end to the amount of debt you'd like to see built up from tax cuts?
6. "How should we treat people who have made plans to commit a terrorist action, but have taken no action and therefore broken no laws?" Does every plan envisioned or discussed by any person result in follow-through? Monitor them more closely!
7. "If Osama bin Laden is captured or killed, do you think that terrorist attacks on U.S. interests will cease?" No. But I would give Bush credit for following through on "dead or alive," which I cannot do now.
8. "Would you, as President, refuse to respond to terrorist attacks on the U.S. in order to preserve a balanced budget?" No, but I'd stop cutting historically low tax rates.
9. "Are you aware that the Clinton administration knew where Osama bin Laden was and did not act?" The article you linked to mentions that the partisan Monica scandal was distracting the President at that time--do you believe that was worth it? Also, in 1999 the U.S. failed to act on a different opportunity--because Bin Laden was camping with the royals from the UAE. Yes, the UAE that Bush wanted to sell port managemnet to.
10. "How has your view of world politics changed since 9/11, if at all?" Do you recognize that 9/11 was in some respects a response to 50 years of Middle Eastern manipulation by the West, or do you believe that "9/11 changed EVERYTHING"?
18 - Nicely done, Winn
I consider myself the typical "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" cut-out with a couple of caveats thrown in.
But even though I don't agree with you on everything, I felt that Elisberg needed an enema and your article came pretty close to it.
Somebody should send him a link to this page... :)
p.s. JP had a couple of good points, too ;)
19 - [MR]Chip
Some of these issues are really stupid, but I'll pick a few.
1. If Iraq is a 'work in progress', considering that the situation there has only become worse, what end are you progressing towards? Are you trying to recreate Dante's Inferno?
2. & 11. You keep mentioning that you expected worse. How low were those expectations?
13. Should a Christian minister be required to perform ceremonies that violate his convictions, such as gay weddings? - From a comment above I understand that in the US civil and religious weddings can be mixed (no seperation of church and state?). But of course allowing gay weddings would only be a civil issue. (btw - I'm from Holland where civial gay marriages are normal, any religous club can have any kind of wedding they like and the sanctity of marriage is about as intact as in the US)
22. How should we treat people who have made plans to commit a terrorist action, but have taken no action and therefore broken no laws? - There are still plenty of ways to catch them without turning the place into a police state.
24. & 47. How long after the end of World War II did U.S. troops finally leave Germany?/In World War II, how long after the official surrender of the Axis powers did we actually finish fighting against insurgents in Germany and Japan? - Wrong comparison. To answer the second one: quite soon after. The idea of a guerilla war in Germany after the war is a lie propagated by US right wingers. If you want a better comparison, look at the British attempts to bring democracy to Iraq in the early 20th century. (Or the Russians in Afghanistan, or Vietnam of course.)
28. If a country demonstrates that they have nuclear technology and says that they have a desire to destroy a major American city, but the U.N. Security Council, of which that country is a member, says that they think that country is probably bluffing, what should the U.S. President do? - If they demonstrate it, the UN wouldn't say they're bluffing. Bad(ly phrased) example.
29. If Osama bin Laden is captured or killed, do you think that terrorist attacks on U.S. interests will cease? - No, by now the US occupation of Iraq is much more of a factor than Bin Laden, who is important for Al Qaeda the organisation, not Al Qaeda the franchise. Though getting rid of him would obviously help.
30. Would you, as President, refuse to respond to terrorist attacks on the U.S. in order to preserve a balanced budget? - The idea that Democrats would not respond at all is a straw man. Afghanistan was a cause everyone could get behind. In fact, NATO is now running the show there. It's the war of choice in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 9/11) that's the problem.
34. If the U.S. was a party to the Kyoto treaty, and every other signatory country ignored the terms of the treaty and over-polluted, would you still consider the U.S. responsible for upholding the terms of the treaty alone? - The US shouldn't use the worst behaviour that can be found on any issue as the stardard for their own.
36. Is it good or bad that Saddam Hussein is no longer the President of Iraq? - Wrong question. And even then, polls in Iraq have found that most Iraqis feel worse off now than under Saddam. And they're the ones to ask, not any American. They may be glad they're rid of Saddam, but they've been pushing from the frying pan into the fire.
37. Are you aware that the Clinton administration knew where Osama bin Laden was and did not act? - Actually, he did. And he got closer with his cruise missiles than Bush with boots on the ground. Are you aware that the unit tasked with looking for Bin Laden was disbanded a year ago?
42. Should economic interests be considered at all when making environmental policy? - The environment has economic value. And not just to faceless corporations and some numbers on paper but to real people and the quality of their lives. Maybe it's time someone took that into account? What would you rather have, a big flatscreen hd tv and a veil of smog around your house or a nice forest?
43. How has your view of world politics changed since 9/11, if at all? - 9/11 was a minor incident. Far, far more people have died since as a result of American policies (maybe the media rule that 1 Western life is worth 100 Muslim lives and 1000 African lives is being applied in practice?). The economy got a hit at the same time, but that too was less impressive than it seemed - the economic downturn was coming anyway. Why do you want to turn a small group of terrorists getting lucky into a clash of civilisations? Can't you see that this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can't you see that in retaliation for a few buildings you have destroyed two nations (look up the term 'failed state') and the lives of millions of people?
20 - JohnD
If you've never heard same-sex marriage described as a threat, then you've never read Stanley Kurtz. I googled "Stanley Kurtz threat" and found this illustrative quotation:
"Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover."
That was so perfect, I almost didn't both with my second choice, "Maggie Gallagher threat." She has written an essay titled, "Why is Same-Sex 'Marriage' a Threat?"
Two of the most prominent conservative opponents of same-sex marriage call it a threat. This is not a case of "your mileage may vary." Conservatives (erroneously) call same-sex marriage a threat.
As for discrimination against the unmarried, well, I'm going to more-or-less side with the government on this one. There are appropriate benefits and responsibilities for couples in a marriage. They would be appropriately extended to same-sex couples. We cannot pretend that members of a couple -- same- or opposite-sex -- do not have entwined possessions and finances. I don't see this as discrimination against the single.
And there are many cases in which the government should indeed discriminate against people. There is such a thing as rational discrimination. Ten-year olds cannot run for President, a wholly rational case of age discrimination.
As for the history of marriage, there is a long history of marriage as a matter of civil law. I once read a translation of a Sumerian marriage contract. No ancient deities; it was all property matters. The history of marriage as a religious institution is the shorter one.
My statement of "fraud" was in that the proponents of Prop 22 made a claim that it would accomplish a specific goal, and then applied the measure to other goals. "Fraud" might be better applied to the proponents of a same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts. Claims have been made that signatures were obtained fraudulently, and all evidence is that this is the case.
So, I'm not certain where I've made assumptions and generalizations. I do know you didn't answer my question.
Shall we continue to abrogate the rights of clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, despite that some people find same-sex marriages odious?
21 - Maurice
Dave #15
I have to disagree. I don't think Dems are unable to understand. I think they believe ALL Republicans are beer swillin, tax cheatin, god fear'n, gun tote'n, illiterate, nascar watchin homophobes.
If you assumed those sort of things about Dems you would have no desire to try to understand them.
22 - Phillip Winn
JP, great answers. For what it's worth, I agree with you exactly on #1: milestones set by boots on the ground. Of course, where we differ might be that I'm willing to accept a longer period of time before we hit those milestones than most people.
Your #2, #5, and #8 all point to a common divide between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican characterization of this gap in thinking is "that money is *ours*, not the governments." They claim that the Democrats think of all money first as the governments, which I think is unfair, but I don't know how to describe this difference from a Democrat's perspective. The point is that the conservative Republican answer to an increased deficit is to cut spending, not to raise taxes. The Bush Administration's single biggest failure from a conservative Republican's perspective is their failure to reign in spending. Though entitlement spending is a large part of that, President Bush doesn't seem to have ever seen an opportunity to spend our money that he doesn't like.
I wasn't clear enough on your #3. I don't like that energy execs were able to set policy in closed-door meetings. I generally think nothing other than national security discussions should ever take place in closed-door meetings, and even then there ought to be certain rules. However, in general I think that most people overreact to this real problem, assuming a conspiracy when an intelligent conspirator would still adopt a policy designed to preserve their long-term viability, and therefore not screw us too badly. That assumes that the energy execs in question were rational actors, which may be assuming too much. Also, too many people assume that all energy execs are evil, when I think that their interests ought to be considered and balanced against the interests of several other groups.
On your #4, no, I don't believe that all of us have equal opportunity. I don't think that it is possible to give everyone equal opportunity, nor should it be a goal. Young master Gates (Bill's son) is going to have far greater opportunity than I ever will, and the answer is neither to attempt to reward me out of thin air, nor to tear him down to my level. My goal would be to provide everybody with an acceptable minimum level of opportunity, while doing nothing to harm the greater opportunities given to those less fortunate. I hope my children have better opportunities than I ever did, just as I had greater opportunities than my parents did.
Your answer to your question #6 is intriguing. It is precisely those attempts to discover and monitor terrorist threats more closely that has occupied so many horrified people in recent weeks, after all!
On your #9, I thought that the Republican witch-hunt against President Clinton was one of the most disgusting displays of partisan politics in the last 50 year, or maybe more. I also believe that the Republicans are seeing the results of that now, as disgusting displays of partisan politics continue with President Bush as the target.
Your #10 is intiguing, because you didn't answer my question before asking your own. As a result, I don't feel particular compelled to answer yours, either! :-) Still, I think that the U.S. had made many foreign policy mistakes over the year, that 9/11 was not entirely justified by those mistakes, and that the current animosity toward the U.S. is nearly pathological, having very little relation in scale to the offenses both real and imagined. Once again, it's a really thorny issue.
All in all, an excellent, if complete, response, and I appreciate the tone of your comment as well. Thanks!
23 - Phillip Winn
I changed my follow-up questions to be italicized for increased clarity. I don't think I can do anything more to help with the formatting.
24 - Maurice
Damn! I forgot "knuckle draggin".
25 - Phillip Winn
JohnD, I hadn't read either of those articles, primarily because the subject doesn't much interest me. I know conservative Republicans upset about the issue, but I just don't care, and none of the folks I know have called it a threat. People often say outrageous things to sell books or draw traffic, but that's not my style, and it doesn't seem to affect people I know.
Interestingly, my experience is based on interactions with Republicans, while yours is based on reading columnists. I suspect that, like many people, you don't often chat with Republicans about these issues directly, which leads to misinformation and bad assumptions. Perhaps I'm wrong and you do. I'm very fortunate to have friends along the political spectrum, primarily as the result of attending an Episcopal church. It has not always been so, but the benefit to my thinking has been enormous.
My point about discrimination has to do with laws dictating that only a spouse can visit someone in an ICU, or is eligible for government benefits in case of their prolonged illness, etc. It gets dicey if you allow a person to designate absolutely anyone to meet those requirements, but that's the sort of diceyness we have to put up with in order to avoid *bad* discrimination.
Sorry for not answering your question earlier; I thought I had. I *thought* the answer, but apparently didn't type it. :-)
As ha been pointed out previously, civil marriage requires only paperwork and two witness (and perhaps blood tests, depending on where you live). Religious marriage is entirely within the domain of the church. A minister cannot obligate the government to honor a relationship, and the government cannot require a minister to officiate at a ceremony of which he or she does not approve.
All of that is as I think it should be, and it means that it isn't up to the government to decide whether a minister can or cannot officiate at a same-sex ceremony, but rather it is up to whatever authorities are over that minister. The situation among Protestants in the U.S. makes that very cloudy indeed, but that's a completely separate discussion about which I could go on for hours and hours. :-)