All the Sun For You

A mom, two boys, a husband, and a whole lot of adventure!

Updated: Dear Republican Party


OK – my use of “fascist” for both parties in this country was unfair.  When  you take it literally (and who wouldn’t), it’s not nice.  So I’ve removed that reference.


It’s going to be a wordy Wednesday over here, because I have a lot to say.  I don’t usually “go here” on my blog, but I think it’s time to put something out there.

I am a Libertarian.  I believe in personal freedoms, human rights, and fair taxation (“use taxes” work great – get rid of the income tax).  You stay out of my business, and I’ll stay out of yours.  The federal government should be small, and limited, and should not be regulating morals or how much of your own money you actually get to keep.  It’s that simple to me.

I was looking through my reader today and came upon this post by Jill who linked to something I’ve been wanting to read about, but quite frankly, have not made the time for because I knew it would upset me.  And it did – it upset me very much.

As I read House Bill 212, all I could think about was what I want to say to the Republican Party.  So here it goes:

Dear “GOP,”

I hate to break it to you, but you are not the “Grand Old Party.”  The GOP was founded by people who believed in small government on all fronts – not just financial ones.  The GOP believed in leaving things up to the state.  The GOP didn’t believe in regulating morals.  The GOP believed in personal freedoms.  The GOP believed in a separation of Church and State.  The GOP believed in protecting our borders, but not in imperialism.

Your “GOP” believes in small government until you want to tell people how to live their lives.  Your “GOP” wants less taxation and less government involvement in the free markets, the school systems, etc., but once the issues of gay marriage and abortion are raised, your “GOP” wants to be in our bedrooms and homes.  Small government is your motto until you decide that women can’t make reproductive choices on their own.  Small government is your motto until you decide that gay human beings are demonizing your RELIGIOUS definition of marriage.

You are not the GOP.  You are big government – just of a different persuasion than the Democratic Party.  You are no different from Democrats – you believe in big government too – just when it comes to different things.

You get your attack on gay marriage and women’s rights out of your platform, and you have my vote.  You really do – that’s a promise.  But as long as you, as a party, keep insisting that gay Americans are lesser than YOU because they are simply gay – then I’m not interested in anything you have to say.  As long as you, as a party, keep insisting that you know better what to do with my uterus than I do – then I’m not interested in anything you have to say.  As long as you, as a party, keep pushing this “personhood” movement that threatens my ability to grow my family via fertility treatments – then I’m not interested in anything you have to say.

The saddest thing to me, Republican Party, is that there are so many people out there who feel the same way as me.  We like your stance on taxation.  We like your stance on small government involvement – but we want to see that stance applied to all issues in this country and not just fiscal ones, as you as a party, have chosen to do.  We want you to practice what you preach on all fronts.

Get out of my head – it’s not yours and you have no right to try to regulate my beliefs.  Get out of my bedroom – what I do in it is none of your business.  Get out of my uterus – what grows there, or does not grow there, does not belong to you.  Get out of my RE’s office and laboratory – the eggs, sperm, and embryos in there didn’t come from your body.  Get out of the business of marriage – marriage is a religious ceremony that should not involve government at all.  Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else you seem to think we need to be – those countries aren’t yours to control.

I also have some news for you.  Most of you are pro-choice.  I know you think you’re pro-life, but you are not.  The only real pro-lifer I’m seeing in your party right now is Paul Ryan – and that’s because he believes that ALL life should be protected.  He does not believe in exception clauses for rape and incest when it comes to abortion (scary stuff!). Most of you cannot and do not say that.  You pander to the Christian Right by claiming that you protect all life unless, of course, that life was not created in a consensual way.  Isn’t a life a life, no matter how it comes into existence?  If you think even ONE person should have a choice whether or not to  carry a pregnancy to term – then you are pro-choice.  It’s that simple.  Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  It means that there should be the choice to carry a pregnancy to term or not.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s true.  You are no different from the left-wing on this one.  Again, you just want it more regulated than they do – but you still believe that some people are exempt from being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.  You are pro-choice.

I will not be voting in November.  I don’t like my choices.  The Democratic Party is way too socialist for my liking – and they’ve taken too many things too far in regards to regulation.  Again – they’re just as big-government as you – just in different ways.  You may think that my abstaining to vote is a vote for Obama, but it is my freedom to choose to vote or not.  And I won’t vote for a party that endorses bias against women and gays.

I believe in human rights – all human rights.  You do not.  The human rights you support are those defined by the Christian Bible.  Last time I checked, this country was made up of people from all faiths.  What makes you think that the Christian faith should have anything to do with federal and state governments?  Our forefathers certainly didn’t think this way.

America is a republic – not a democracy – a republic.  It’s time to start acting like one on all fronts.  Return your platform to small government on all things, and you’ve got my vote.

Until then – no thank you.

Author: Courtney

Hi, there, I’m Courtney. I never planned to stay home with my kids, but I got sucked into motherhood when my first baby came into our lives after years of infertility and multiple rounds of IVF. His brother followed closely behind, something we didn’t plan on after having such a rough road with achieving parenthood the first time around. My boys are IVF cycle twins, conceived on the same day but born two years and one day apart (they were both transferred on the same day in October, but with two years between them). My boys are the best of friends and my husband is a terrific husband, father, and most importantly… friend. He fully supported my desire to stay home (“I just wanted it to be your idea and not mine, I totally want you to stay home and raise our kids!”) and encourages me in everything I do. I am a lover of projects, spreadsheets, fitness, healthy cooking and eating, crafts, selling my stuff on FB (HA!), and the outdoors. If I’m active, I’m pretty darn happy!

15 thoughts on “Updated: Dear Republican Party

  1. Okay. So, um. I was going to enter into a heated debate with you, but I dont think that will accomplish anything. I’ll just say that you are assuming a lot, and instead of trying to understand or find out the reasoning behind it, you are assigning motive and malice to people you despise, simply because they believe differently from you. This post was very hurtful. It’s one thing to say what you believe, it’s completely different to say that those who disagree with you are evil and hateful. I’m also very Libertarian, and it is for THAT reason that I am against legalizing gay marriage. I don’t want the government anymore entrenched in our lives and choices than it already is. The answer is NOT to allow the government MORE power. The answer is to get the government OUT of the individual freedoms that is has already usurped. The government should have no ability to legalize marriage for anyone. It’s a social convention and a religious rite. The government has no place in marriage, for anyone, period. I could go on, point by point, to explain in detail why I disagree with your conclusions (and I do disagree with them, so much that keeping back my argument is very difficult), but I think that would be fruitless and would cause more anger. I think that we probably want the same end result, that our idea of the proper role of government is very similar, we just disagree on the best way to get to the destination. I probably should’ve just stayed quiet and let you spout off steam, because heaven knows we all need to do that sometimes. But I just wanted to let you know that not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of hatred and prejudice.

    • Whoa! I don’t think I was hateful and I certainly didn’t say I despised anyone. I don’t believe that gay marriage should be made legal either – what I don’t agree with is an ammendment to our constitution to make it illegal. Same with abortion. I never called anyone hateful or evil.

      Wow. Just wow.

      And can I just say that I have disagreed with things you’ve posted in the past, and would have never left a response like this?

  2. Okay, you’re right and I’m very sorry. I did over react. I just went back and read your post again. I think what got me was the fascist reference and the “endorses bias against” statements, which do presume a level of prejudice or hate. This is your blog and you can certainly say anything that you want. I’ll try to keep my comments to myself when I don’t agree and when I’m on the rag. Anyway, I am sorry. Feel free to delete the comment, or whatever.

    • Are you kidding? You know my rules on my own blog – what I put out there is open for comments. If I don’t want the comments, I shouldn’t post it. I would NEVER delete your comment! NEVER! (Accept, of course, if you were a troll.)

  3. I’m not a Liberatarian– well, who knows what I am, I just use the label “Independent” because I don’t like associating myself with most of what I see out there these days by aligning myself via categories. For context: I have almost exclusively voted Democrat. I have the intentions of voting for a single Republican this year, not in the presidential election (who is very progressive and often breaks with his party and who works with most other politicians on both sides of the fence well), but if his Democrat contender wins, I won’t be terribly upset. My issues with the Republican party are almost exclusively (but vehemently) over social policy. In this way, I am very Liberatarian-leaning: I don’t get why marriage should be legislated at all (give everyone the same rights legally and let their individual religious affiliates decide the rest how they see fit). I don’t like the mismanagement of things like Early Intervention (which, in Massachusetts, is under the purview of the Department of Public Health and not the Department of Education and which uses an improper testing model; I could go on all day but that’s another conversation). I don’t like the government in my personal business. I don’t exclusively feel that way across the board– I’m kind of a stickler for rules and I think a lot of people need more oversight to not consistently cheat and break rules left and right (ask me sometime about my “people on bikes breaking a million road rules in dangerous ways” rant!) so I guess I’m a hypocrite there, heh. I am VEHEMENTLY, loudly opposed to anti-choice and anti-gay ideologies, and it isolates me from my family pretty often. And I am voting for Obama in the fall, not because he’s my favorite ever but because I think the idea of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan makes me so physically ill that I want to cry. But I also think our biggest enemies are not the president, or even Congress, but each other, because someone out there keeps voting for these assholes.

    Okay! Got that out of the way 🙂

    The worst part about all of this is how easily deceived the general public is. If you say it once and people hear it, it almost doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or if the fact-checkers swarm all over it and won’t stop talking about it. My parents are going to vote for Romney. They were going to vote for ANY Republican candidate. It serves their economic interests to do so. My mom has specific views on abortion and gay marriage that in some ways overlap with the Republican Party’s and in some ways do not– I think the idea of not being able to get her hypothetical raped, pregnant 10-year-old daughter an abortion is abhorrent to her– but she’s not going to think about that. She’d rather vote on tax policy alone. And when my parents and brothers vote against my bodily autonomy, and my daughters’; when they vote against my fertility treatment options; when they vote against my friends’ rights as gay human beings to live and love and be happy and be left alone… it’s going to make me sad and angry and I will probably say things about it that they will laugh at me for for years. But I will say them, and it’s going to be messy.

    • I knew you’d have some interesting thoughts on this.

      “The worst part about all of this is how easily deceived the general public is.” Yes, yes, yes. The general public just wants to be told what to think and needs it put in simple terms. Our media has made no room for legitimate candidates outside of the two party system, and that’s by design. Anyone who thinks the media isn’t controlling things has never read news from outside the US. In my extended family, if Fox says something, it’s gospel. If CNN says it, it’s lies. What they don’t understand is that neither of those news outlets are telling the truth. It’s all spin to endorse agendas.

      My parents are just like yours – they will vote straight ticket Republican because of the tax policy and the financial gain to them. My dad likes to say, “oh, Court, stop worrying about abortion rights – they’re not going anywhere.” Really? Doctors are being run out of cities across the country by the pro-life movement. (And don’t get me wrong – I don’t like abortion. I would not want my daughter having one, but I also don’t want anyone telling her she can’t have one.) My dad says he has an issue with “gays” getting married but he says he doesn’t quite know WHY he has issues with it. WHAT?

      My sister is a self-proclaimed socialist. You can imagine how she’s treated in my family. She and I have the most wonderful conversations on politics because we respect each other so much – and truly listen. She says some nutso things (and I’m sure she thinks the same of me) but no one gets bent out of shape – we just discuss and move on. Maybe that’s possible because we’re both political outcasts to our parents (our other sister is a staunch Republican, God love her).

      I think I may vote, and just write in Ron Paul. I love that man!

      Thanks for the comment. I’ve been anxious to hear from you 😉

  4. I would reply with a lengthy post about my views, but I won’t because I think it’d be more fun to not. I may not vote in this upcoming presidential election, which is shocking to me because I have voted in every single state and national election since I turned 18.

    Incidentally, how do you square public spending on infertility via tax expenditures with your libertarian views? That’s not meant to be accusatory, just curious.

    • Actually, this is easy to square away. I don’t believe in income taxes, and any credit to return income to my family is one I’ll take. Income taxes are here to stay, so I need to make the best of the situation. Crediting my family for our own expenses is far better, and far more “fair tax,” in my opinion, than adding more taxes to pay for “everyone’s” expenses. I would be entirely against raised taxes for everyone to help curtail my own medical expenses, and would not endorse such a bill.

      • Ahh, see, now this is where fundamentally different world views come into play. I think paying income taxes is an important duty in an advanced society such as ours. I prefer income taxes because every other form of taxation is inherently regressive. When you operate from the point of view that everyone has an obligation to pay income tax commensurate with their income levels, then money returned to a family based on a particular circumstance is public money spent on that family for that purpose. On this we will never agree. 🙂

      • I’ll add that I think our tax dollars are terribly misused, but since we’re in a democracy, we won’t always like everything.

        I would like to see most tax credits deductions go away (even though our family is one of the minority of families in the country that actually benefits from itemizing deductions) and see investment income taxed at income tax levels with a reform, not abolition, of the corporate tax. Right now tax is heavily used as a sneaky way to enact social policy by both parties, and they favor some people over others for bizarre and random reasons. Moving to a “use” tax is not a neutral tax since it ends up taxing people earning more much less than people earning less who spend a greater proportion of their income by necessity. To me, that’s sickening. Almost as sickening as the fact that wealthy people, whose investments make up a larger part of their income than that of middle class people, currently usually pay much lower tax rates than middle class people.

  5. Ok, now I’m back to the real world I can sit down and comment on this post.

    First off, I didn’t read the original version of the post, but I am glad to read that you removed the references to fascism. That is an extremely overused and inappropriate term that carries with it some heavy implications, particularly in parts of the world (like here in Spain) where a fascist dictator was in power barely a generation or two ago.

    Also, as I mentioned on twitter, there is likely very little that we can agree upon politically speaking, but that’s okay. I respect you expressing your opinions in your space and it sounds as though they are well thought-out, even if, I believe, erroneous ;). I consider myself a liberal, perhaps even a socialist in its loose, modern-day definition, and am proud to do so. Study after study shows that the highest quality of life can be found in socialist countries (again, modern definition, meaning mixed economy states). The cause of that is clear: “free,” quality, public education and health care, low crime rates, etc. But I’m sure that is something you’ve heard ad nauseum from your sister, so I won’t go into it.

    So, just a couple of questions/comments on what you specifically mention in your post.

    1. How is protecting gay marriage different from mandatory IF insurance coverage? If you don’t want the government telling you what you can and cannot do in your private life why should they then be allowed to tell companies what benefits they should give to their employees?

    2. Voting is important. It is the foundation of democracy. Vote for whoever you want, but for godsake VOTE! Sometimes voting FOR someone is just a way of voting AGAINST someone else. Pick the lesser of two evils if that’s your take on the election, but do not stick your head in the sand. Neither of the two parties is going to look at their voter numbers and change their politics because they got fewer votes; they care about the win and little more, and not voting does NOTHING to further your own cause. One of two men is going to be president (and one of another two men is going to be just a heart attack away) and I, for one, would not be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to make sure it’s not THAT one (whoever THAT one might be for you).

    3. Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It involves countless rights and legal ramifications that are more important to many (yours truly) than any religious significance. For me it had NO religious significance. My sister and BIL got married exclusively because of insurance benefits and mortgage/tax reasons. Why are gay couples not to be allowed those same legal rights and privileges?

    4. One last note on socialism: it is, by definition, for the good of many. I understand it being easy to find flaws in the system if you’ve never needed to benefit from it (and, to date, the only socialist benefit I’ve enjoyed is my 16-week maternity leave), but the fact of the matter is that I’m happy to pay more in taxes if it guarantees health care for Stan’s cancer-ridden aunt or access to quality public trade school for our otherwise unable-to-pay-for-it niece. (I think you’ve already seen and commented on MO’s post on the matter, but if not:

    5. Um, didn’t Ron Paul sponsor the Sanctity of Life Act?!?!

    And, finally, like I stated above, although I agree with almost nothing in your post, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of it, and no offense is intended by any of my comments.

    • Alrighty – here we go! 😉

      This post was not on the fundamentals of Libertarianism – it was about my frustration with the Republican party.

      1) – I am not endorsing mandatory IF coverage via insurance – I would never endorse that with the exception of saying that IF we must have mandatory insurance (which it’s looking like we will), then insurance companies should cover IF treatments. Just because I am Libertarian does not mean that I can’t support certain things since we are forced to have them in this country. If we must have public health care, then that public health care SHOULD cover IF treatments, in my opinion. I have never said that the private companies must provide IF treatments. My company does. Some don’t. I find it unfortunate that some don’t WANT to, but you can’t force a private company to provide something. I am endorsing a tax credit to families who need/use IF treatments. I will endorse most tax credits that bring my family’s earned income back to them. Until my (and others’) Federal taxes are equal to, or less than, what we pay in state taxes, I will push for tax credits. As I replied to another comment – I don’t believe in federal income taxes, but they’re here to stay. Just because I don’t believe in federal taxes doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have opinions on tax credits or can’t endorse them/some.

      2) If I vote, I will be writing someone in. I don’t believe in picking the lesser of the two evils when they’re both awful. I just don’t. Our media has forced us into a two party system and voting for the least bad of two bad people just endorses that. Here are my choices: Vote for a guy who believes in government involvement in everything (including the automotive industry), or a guy who wants the government to be in our most personal business. No – I can’t vote for either one of them. If I vote, I will write someone in.

      3) Marriage – that has traditionally been a religious ceremony. Civil unions is what the government should concern themselves with – not marriage. Let everyone have their civil unions (I got married by the state – no religious ceremony at all) and have all benefits that come with that. But ammending constitutions to protect “marriage?” No. I don’t believe in that at all on either side of the fence. Again, this post was not on the basics of Libertarianism, so I didn’t feel the need to specify the difference between marriage and civil unions. I believe that civil unions, and the protection of them, need to be managed at the state level. Just like all social issues – it’s not for the federal government to regulate. Why do we no longer trust our states? Why has the federal government taken so much power away from the states? I want civil unions to be upheld for all (gay, straight) but at the state level. Now, this is scary because some states may take it to vote and vote it out, but at least they’re deciding for their own state and not being told what they must allow by the federal government. In my own state, if they took it to a vote, I fear gay “marriage” would be made illegal because people still view marriage here as religious. There are many out-of-state powers at work trying very hard to get this brought to a vote. (Which brings up things like campaign finance reform but I won’t go there but I will just say that if you don’t live in this state, then I don’t think any party should be allowed to accept your campaign dollars.)

      4) If you look at the textbook definition of socialism, then I can see your point. But when you look at the real-life application of it, I 100% disagree. It’s like economics – you learn in school that it should work a certain way in certain, perfect circumstances – but those circumstances are never perfect in real life. I read Mo’s post and commented multiple times back when it was first posted. I was one of the only ones to go against the grain, and I’m proud of that. One of the reasons I posted this post is so that my readers know I’m not a rank-and-file Repulican. If you read my comments on others’ blogs, you may think I’m a Repulican and given that most everyone I read is liberal, I wanted this out there.

      5) Yes – but everyone has their flaws. No one is 100% committed to a set of ideals. We all are in some way a blend of various political ideals. Again, my post was about my issues with the Republican Party – it wasn’t a debate on Libertarianism.

      Thank you for your thoughtful comment!

      • You’re totally right. Your post wasn’t about your views in general, and I shouldn’t have gone so off-topic. I actually enjoy debating politics with well-informed, respectful people, but I did almost hijak your post with my comment.

        I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We all pick and choose among certain political ideologies (very few people actuall follow the party line to a TEE) and what might be a deal-breaker for me against a party very well may be the thing that makes you decide FOR it.

        And, regarding the voting in general (which WAS part of the post, so not hijaking), I simply cannot agree. If you vote for someone that you know is not going to win, then you are accepting the fact that you have no voice. If I felt that way I’d damn well be looking for a solution.

  6. I just wanted to say it took some balls to put this out there and I applaud you for that. I don’t agree with a lot of what you have to say but I am impressed that you said it. It’s more than I have the cojones to do.

    • Hey, thanks! I know that most of my readers, and the people I follow, are democrats and the last thing I want anyone thinking is that I’m a modern-day republican.

      I like to show my cards – it sometimes makes the game a little easier to play 😉 I’m an open book – always have been.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s