Republican Voters (Secretly, Really) Want Bigger Government

[Harshaw]

Okay...fair enough.

And while I can appreciate your written response, it didn't address the question at hand nor the issues addressed in the article. But I Thank You for graciously participating.

Well, I'm guessing that many Republican voters had the same thoughts I did.

 

[reinoe]

Makes perfect sense. I hope Rand primaries Trump's ass in 2020 and fires him.

You think the same Rand Paul who couldn't be Trump in 2016 is going to beat an incumbent Trump in 2020? C'mon dude.

 

[Mycroft]

Wow...such critics...

Now...I read about as much of that article as I could stomach. Being typical HuffPo fare, it's chock full of BS and I eventually get tired of trying to cut through the stuff.

The thing about Rand Paul is...he sucked when it came to the campaign...nobody like him, even if...as HuffPo contends...he should have been the one they'd flock to...and, I think many Republicans thought...since he's part of government...that he's also part of government and they wanted someone else. Ergo...Trump won.

Now...whether the Republican-controlled government will move toward "smaller government" remains to be seen. One thing we can be sure of, though, is that Trump wants to reduce the size...but mainly the power and control...of government. Heck, Obamacare being repealed will reduce a HUGE chunk of government...especially government spending.

So, I suggest we don't worry about it for now. Wait and see. I don't think it'll take more than 100 days to get an idea which way the Republican government is going.

But the question wasn't whether or not Rand Paul was a good, viable candidate nor what type of government Trump wants or how he would run his Administration. The question was about those Republican voters who voted for Trump, towit:



Ignore everything in the OP article except the contrast between Rand Paul supporters and Trump/Ben Carson supporters then consider who the Republican base eventually voted for and ask yourself why did they vote that way? Then read the following and all that comes after it from the OP article:



Try to remove all the partisanship and consider the article objectively. Was the author right?

Did the voters gravitate to Trump because he gave assurances to:

* Bring manufacturing jobs back to America?
* Reduce the number of imports through new or renegotiated trade deals?
* Be tougher on illegal immigration?
* Reduce the violence in the streets?
* Force government to work for the people?

If the answer is "YES" to any or all of the above, ask yourself "How does he do it through government processes?"

He certainly can't achieve these things by letting things remain as they are. So, how will he do it?

In order to enforce immigration laws, wouldn't he have to increase the number of Border Patrol agents?

In order to clean up the streets and rid cities of crime, wouldn't he have to pure more funds into local communities? Where does he get the revenue for that?

Simple questions, but once you start asking "What" and "How" you begin to wonder can he achieve all that he hopes to achieve keeping the size and scope of government at its current levels? And if the answer is "NO", then wouldn't that mean the voters unknowingly or secretly voted to increase the size and reach of government?

I answered your question with this:

The thing about Rand Paul is...he sucked when it came to the campaign...nobody like him, even if...as HuffPo contends...he should have been the one they'd flock to...and, I think many Republicans thought...since he's part of government...that he's also part of government and they wanted someone else. Ergo...Trump won.

The rest was my expansion on whether any Republican would actually want bigger government...and I ended up with this:

So, I suggest we don't worry about it for now. Wait and see. I don't think it'll take more than 100 days to get an idea which way the Republican government is going.

That pretty much takes care of your whole thread topic.

 

[Ganesh]

The Real Reason Rand Paul is Losing to Trump and Carson: Republican Voters Want Bigger Government | The Huffington Post

I came across the linked article and it's a very interesting read. As I reviewed it, I recalled much of what Donald Trump had stated while on the campaign trail. While his focus had always been on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, reducing the influx of illegal immigrants and renegotiating trade deals, I couldn't help remembering things I'd read recently on global trade which coincided with things Adam Smith wrote about concerning free trade between nations and what would happen if excessively high tariffs were imposed against the importation of foreign goods to slow such inflows in an attempt to stimulate domestic production. So, you can imagine my surprise to see the author of this HuffPost blog reference Adam Smith in much the same way. And that got me to thinking...

Do Republican voters really want bigger government? Or put another way: In voting for Donald Trump did Republican voters actually vote for bigger government without realizing what their vote would truly mean for government expansion or a ballooning deficit?

Read the article, vote and share your thoughts.

Small government is merely a buzzword that has been so overused it has become cliche. It is supposed to appeal to the angry working poor who imagine all government workers as loafers or incompetent, or far right ideologues who think taxes are theft, and community support is for suckers. It is an attempt to buy votes from segments of the electorate that are ill informed, or feel dysinfranchised and left behind, or want as little community contact as possible. It has been used so many times now it is often parroted unthinkingly by many, accepted with no introspection or investigation.

In fact the far right is enthusiastic about government, at least those functions that benefit them, and they are disdainful of those functions that are of no use to them. That is why items like national defense (and its resulting contracts), policing, and subsidies to business are strongly supported, and medical care, education, pensions, and employment programs are not.

Spin doctors have also wedded the notion of small government with the American mythology of the frontier, the steely eyed pioneer who needed nothing, as he was self-sufficient in all ways.It's an ad man's dream, a dodgy political proposition that will be disastrous for most, but wrapped up in images of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, and playing on the fears and ill founded suspicions of a browbeaten and largely uneducated working class.

And spin, as the last election shows, works.

 

[The Mark]

idk. i mean, its proven science Obama was the worst president in our history. bush did an excellent job. Clinton, was okay, then i forget who was before that.

We need to give Trump a chance before giving the Worst President in History award to Obama.

 

[Objective Voice]

Well, I'm guessing that many Republican voters had the same thoughts I did.

Then this poll wouldn't apply to you or those other Republican voters who cast their vote for president for somebody else - a 3rd-party candidate, for example - as you did. Towhich:

I voted a mixture. I voted Libertarian for President, Republican for Senate and House, Democrat for governor and state house.

I voted for the Congressional Republicans because Obamacare needs to be repealed, and expecting a Hillary win, I wanted a Republican Senate to moderate her judicial nominations.

But to clarify, I did preface my OP poll by saying...

...put another way: In voting for Donald Trump did Republican voters actually vote for bigger government without realizing what their vote would truly mean for government expansion or a ballooning deficit?

Read the article, vote and share your thoughts.

So, if you didn't vote for Trump, this poll really wouldn't apply to you. Still, I thank you for your input. It's good to know that there are people out there who don't always vote along party lines like myself.

 

[SheWolf]

The Real Reason Rand Paul is Losing to Trump and Carson: Republican Voters Want Bigger Government | The Huffington Post

I came across the linked article and it's a very interesting read. As I reviewed it, I recalled much of what Donald Trump had stated while on the campaign trail. While his focus had always been on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, reducing the influx of illegal immigrants and renegotiating trade deals, I couldn't help remembering things I'd read recently on global trade which coincided with things Adam Smith wrote about concerning free trade between nations and what would happen if excessively high tariffs were imposed against the importation of foreign goods to slow such inflows in an attempt to stimulate domestic production. So, you can imagine my surprise to see the author of this HuffPost blog reference Adam Smith in much the same way. And that got me to thinking...

Do Republican voters really want bigger government? Or put another way: In voting for Donald Trump did Republican voters actually vote for bigger government without realizing what their vote would truly mean for government expansion or a ballooning deficit?

Read the article, vote and share your thoughts.

I was just listening to a podcast that was a similar discussion. A political scientist explained that it comes down to the differences in traditional conservativism and authoritarianism. Smaller government, lower taxes, limits on abortion, etc is conservativism. Trump is ambiguous on a lot of those issues, but he is very vocal on authoritative values like protectionism and immigration.

 

[SheWolf]

The GOP has NOT been the party of "smaller government", or "less government intrusion" for decades.

Trump has conducted himself as a birther and was visable in the tea party. I question if this is what the GOP base has actually always wanted. They complained for the longest time their party didn't listen to them, and they called Romney and others RHINO.

 

[Absentglare]

Trump has conducted himself as a birther and was visable in the tea party. I question if this is what the GOP base has actually always wanted. They complained for the longest time their party didn't listen to them, and they called Romney and others RHINO.

I think the biggest factor is that the GOP base doesn't actually have a clear picture of who their candidates actually are or what they actually want.

 

[Bodi]

I wonder if libertarians could win if we ran around saying "We're going to make America great again" or "We're going to win so much you're going to get tired of winning".

Trump is a doer... you are a wonderer...

 

[Mycroft]

Trump has conducted himself as a birther and was visable in the tea party. I question if this is what the GOP base has actually always wanted. They complained for the longest time their party didn't listen to them, and they called Romney and others RHINO.

Your mention of the Tea Party triggered a recollection of something I read somewhere. It was a contention that Trump is, in actuality, the de facto Tea Party Presidential candidate. And, when you think about it, there could be merit there.

We know the Tea Party was focused on reining in government, reducing taxes...basically limiting government to its duties, law and order and justice. This is pretty much in lockstep with all the stuff Trump campaigned on. And the Elites did the same kinds of things to the Tea Party after they made headway in Congress in 2010 as they tried to do with Trump during his campaign.

Yeah...here's the stuff:

Here’s a little insider something for those who have been with us all along; and perhaps for those who are just now realizing what has taken place.

The reality is: Donald Trump was our Tea Party candidate. Go back and look at the platform, it’s identical to the platform of the original Tea Party (small government, fiscal conservatism, Main Street not Wall Street, and strong immigration controls/enforcement).

Donald Trump is now our President Elect.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/10/our-victory/

Looks like the Tea Party get's the last laugh, eh?

 

[Gaztopian]

I don't believe republicans actually know what they want, as they're too confused and politically muddled by an opportunistic party that doesn't genuinely stand for anything but political expediency and economic elitism. Since the party will peddle to its constituents whatever serves the latter, the constituents are destined to be in a constant state of confusion due to the volatility of political expediency and economic elitism.

 

[radcen]

I don't believe republicans actually know what they want, as they're too confused and politically muddled by an opportunistic party that doesn't genuinely stand for anything but political expediency and economic elitism. Since the party will peddle to its constituents whatever serves the latter, the constituents are destined to be in a constant state of confusion due to the volatility of political expediency and economic elitism.

Don't disagree, but you do know that the same could be said for the Dems, too, right?

 

[limelight66]

I don't believe republicans actually know what they want, as they're too confused and politically muddled by an opportunistic party that doesn't genuinely stand for anything but political expediency and economic elitism. Since the party will peddle to its constituents whatever serves the latter, the constituents are destined to be in a constant state of confusion due to the volatility of political expediency and economic elitism.

Actually, I think you just described liberalism. While I'll agree there are republican voters who are confused and muddled, liberals rely on confused and muddled voters. For example/s: The poor have been voting D for 50 years and the % of poor has not decreased......... More and more welfare has hurt more lower class people and made more of them dependent on the government than it has helped. If welfare were successful (in terms of common sense) there would be less people on welfare, not more. But that's just my idea of how a successful program should work. But to liberals the more people who need the government, the better......Take a look at all of the protests blocking highways and interfering with public infrastructure and peoples' lives. They are perfect examples of muddled and confused voters. They all need to be told to get back to work, quit acting like cry babies and STFU.......

 

[limelight66]

I think the majority of voters, both Ds and Rs want less government. Of course there are a lot of voters who think more government is always better, government is the solution, and government is better than the private sector. Those are the educated, molded, well trained, dedicated democrats.

I won't argue that the GOP is a big government party. That is what they've sadly become. And that is exactly why Donald Trump is the president elect. The establishment GOP has stabbed us in the back and given us the proverbial finger for far too long and this is the result. Voting for a candidate who wants to "drain the swamp" is certainly not voting for more government.

 

[apdst]

A small government can make bad economic policy.

As far as big government goes, it wasn't the Republicans that used government agencies to kill jobs and go after political opponents. It wasn't the Republicans who gave us Obamacare, cash for clunkers, Obamaphones and Obamacablen then demanded that taxes be raised to pay for it. It hasn't been the Republicans who have been working their asses off to ban, or greatly restrict gun ownership. Except for gay marriage, there isn't a single Liberal idea that doesn't take away our liberties, in part, or whole.

 

[Tech 100]

It wasn't the Republicans who gave us Obamacare

Romneycare, Romney's healthcare plan for Massachusetts, was the original blueprint for Obamacare. So actually, yea, it kinda was.

Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

 

[Objective Voice]

I was just listening to a podcast that was a similar discussion. A political scientist explained that it comes down to the differences in traditional conservativism and authoritarianism. Smaller government, lower taxes, limits on abortion, etc is conservativism. Trump is ambiguous on a lot of those issues, but he is very vocal on authoritative values like protectionism and immigration.

Which is what worries me about him.

Trump was masterful at cloaking what he really means in innuendo and vagueness. Build a wall, for example, works well along nationalist and protectionist lines but no one really cared to ask exactly how its construction would be paid for. Sure, he's said Mexico would flip the bill but how?

Trade deals...while it does sound nice to have them favor American product merchandising as many such deals once did 50-60 years ago, people forget exactly how that came to be. Moreover, what often ignored with globalization is the lasting peace that comes from "shared hands having a slice of the pie" as opposed to 2 or 3 nations dominating the whole of production (trade) and commerce.

So, I understand (to a degree) what Trump was trying to do. I just wonder if those who voted for him understand what a Trump presidency may mean in the long run and how much it may cost all of us in the end.

 

[Cephus]

Which is what worries me about him.

Trump was masterful at cloaking what he really means in innuendo and vagueness. Build a wall, for example, works well along nationalist and protectionist lines but no one really cared to ask exactly how its construction would be paid for. Sure, he's said Mexico would flip the bill but how?

He did explain exactly how, you know. Either Mexico foots the bill or he charges fees for every red cent sent to Mexico by those in America and uses that money to build it. And since a good portion of Mexico's national economy comes from money sent there by illegal aliens, that's a lot of money he could make and a lot of bargaining power he has over Mexico.

 

[Objective Voice]

He did explain exactly how, you know. Either Mexico foots the bill or he charges fees for every red cent sent to Mexico by those in America and uses that money to build it. And since a good portion of Mexico's national economy comes from money sent there by illegal aliens, that's a lot of money he could make and a lot of bargaining power he has over Mexico.

That's assuming Mr. Trump believes he can strong-arm the Mexican government into paying for it. So far, it appears he may have the early advantage by virtue of convincing Carrier and Ford from moving jobs to Mexico. Trump's biggest leverage, however, might be in preventing the transfer of U.S. capital via wire transfer (digital currency) from being sent to Mexico. This would stop alot of U.S. dollars from being sent southward by Mexicans who are here illegal and, thus, have a significant impact of the Mexican economy.

Still, that seems illogical to me if we are to assume that Mexico is making lots of money from those electronic wire transfers. Stop those and their economy contracts which goes contrary to what Trump desires where Mexico's border security pay-for's are concerned.

But that's an entirely separate debate.

 

[Cephus]

That's assuming Mr. Trump believes he can strong-arm the Mexican government into paying for it. So far, it appears he may have the early advantage by virtue of convincing Carrier and Ford from moving jobs to Mexico. Trump's biggest leverage, however, might be in preventing the transfer of U.S. capital via wire transfer (digital currency) from being sent to Mexico. This would stop alot of U.S. dollars from being sent southward by Mexicans who are here illegal and, thus, have a significant impact of the Mexican economy.

Still, that seems illogical to me if we are to assume that Mexico is making lots of money from those electronic wire transfers. Stop those and their economy contracts which goes contrary to what Trump desires where Mexico's border security pay-for's are concerned.

But that's an entirely separate debate.

No, he's giving Mexico a choice. Either pay for the wall or cut into the money being sent their way. Either way, the wall gets built. And Mexico is making a lot of money from those transfers because those transfers are largely what funds their economy. The Mexican economy receives about $2 billion a month from wire transfers from the United States. Do you honestly think they want to lose half of that?

 

[Masterhawk]

*cough* war on drugs and government surveillance *cough*

 

[ataraxia]

i voted for trump cause he will make America great again. doesnt matter how big the government is.

Yeah I'm sure. The way it works is: if Obama wants to create infrastructure jobs to help unemployment after the biggest recession in the nation's history, it's big government, and unconstitutional, and Nazi communist tyranny, etc... and must be fiercely opposed by every true American patriot.. But if Trump wants to do the same thing now, it shows real leadership and he will make America great again, and every true American patriot should support him.

Please... (rolls eyes)

 

[blackjack50]

Donald trump is not a real republican. Just putting that out there. He is less right and more authoritarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluesmoke]

Republican voters may want smaller government in the macro sense, but then, they want larger government in, for instance, defense. Putting that aside, given Rep. voters really do want smaller government, they never have gotten it. With Rep. Presidents, including with Reagan. Never.