Phileas S2 – Republicans for dummies
April 12, 2009 by Patrick
Filed under - The Phileas Club, .Episodes
In this second special we take on the whole GOP! Well, maybe not, but Brian, Richard and Randy take on the difficult task of explaining to a poor, silly and slighlty antagonistic Frenchman what the Republican party and ideas are all about.
We talk about the (often caricatured) media portrayal of their views as well as the major issues that seem to drive a wedge between the left and the right, and that often seem to be considered as extremes in many parts of the world: taxes, government reach, religion, arms control and much more.
We hope you enjoy the show and find that you understand the reasoning behind the republican’s ideals a little bit better, or at least that you have fun listening to our ramblings!
Listen to the show:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
I didn’t expect you to go to the darkside so quickly.
The banner ad that popped up on the site was for Ann Coulter. Way to turn around Patrick.
Well, it might be that I’m a secret sleeper cell for the GOP in France, slowly turning the locals to conservatism one show at a time !
And unfortunately I’m not getting the Ann Coulter ad; mine are USB studio mics. I guess Google is very good at targeting this ads indeed…
If you’ve heard this episode, the following story makes an interesting follow-up: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009028031_websoldierkilled12.html
My first reaction is to go “See? We told you!”, but if I force myself to see things from the other side, there is also a “accidents happen” component to that. If you are of the idea that a country as large as the US needs guns (and I can see why someone living in the middle of Arizona would), or that an armed population is important to counterbalance the government (and here there is an argument to be made there also), then you will agree that accidents will happen and that it’s not grounds to dismiss the whole policy. We have examples of this in many other fields, and we don’t necessarily go to the same conclusion.
Again, my gut reaction is to be outraged, and to want to ban guns everywhere. But I think the debate isn’t as simple as that…
I think this clearly falls into the accident catagory. This reads more like a car accident then a malicious shooting.
Which brings up a good arguing point regading accidents. One of the biggest killers in the US is the automobile, yet there are no calls to outlaw that. ****ducks as the “cars have other uses” arguments fly in*******
I wanted to comment on some of things I have heard from this show or lack thereof. Two things to point out first though, first I haven’t finished the podcast yet and second I consider myself an independent but a right leaning independent. If the following comment was addressed in the podcast I apologize since I have not gotten to that point yet. I believe that the issue of health care is of central importance to whichever way you lean. Personally I believe health care should not be nationalized for a number of reasons. Due to the fact that I am in the US Army I have seen what a pseudo nationalized health care system works like here and that is long lines, misdiagnosis of problems and many people being pushed to the wayside. When you see a doctor following a flow chart of your symptoms to figure out what is wrong with you that screams incompetence! I know that this might not be indicative to what it would look like on a national scene but it scares me all the same. I also think there are fundamental differences in how different countries operate their health care systems then the US would and could. This first steams from the fact that most other nations are more Nationalistic then the US. Case in point currently I am stationed in Germany and have been here for eight years total and have a basic understanding of Germany and Denmark. However, America is the only place I have seen that asks you on any of their official forms what your ethnicity is. People in Europe I have observed are more interested in what your nationality is then your ethnicity and that is what matters. French are French, Germans are Germans and so on. This I think helps a socialization of a country since more people are willing to help each other. If we nationalized the healthcare in America where does the American dream go? Parents tell their kids to be doctors when they grow up but what happens when doctors are now all equal in pay? The pay system works the same as we have in the Army in this respect. This fundamentally would not work the way Americans are raised and would eliminate the American dream we all know of. This of course does not address the fact that what would our taxes look like in a nationalized healthcare scene. Case in point is Denmark where a country of 5.5 million people pays 63% of their income in taxes!
Wow Jacob, you’re a little bit all over the place there.
To sum up my feeling about your statements, I’d say that I don’t know which doctors you’ve been seeing, but flow chart diagnostics aren’t part of our medical system at all, and it is obviously very socialized. Pardon my harshness, but what you’re saying sound more like random FUD than actual analysis of the situation. Certainly you don’t think that our doctors are less competent than yours, do you? And if you do, I think you might need to look at all this a bit closer.
I also don’t really understand your statements about the American dream and how health care would take it away. Believe me, I have a lot of negative things to say about the social climate and politics in France and Europe, but that is probably not one of them.
Anyway, I’ll be happy to respond more specifically if you want to clarify your remarks !
I can see how my comments could be seen that way. Seems that when you know how your meaning it sometimes comes across differently when read. To clarify what I was trying to say the American Dream has been portrayed as the freedom of individuals to pursue their goals in life through hard work and dedication. The founding fathers of our nation called it “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Nationalism runs high within Europe and it’s less about what race you are and more about what Nationality you are, in America it’s completely opposite. If you compare official forms from the governments of the United States and one from Denmark the American one will ask your race while the Danish one will ask you what your nationality is. This I believe underscores the basic difference between the two and what makes socialism more acceptable in Europe then in America. To nationalize the healthcare system in the United States would change our concept of what the American Dream is and is something I believe our nation as a culture is not fully prepared to do. People are very passionate and overlook some things that make nationalized healthcare possible. With what I have observed doctors in Denmark are paid a fixed salary for their services with a supplemental fee for each specific service they provide a patient. To tell an American doctor he is now going to make a set amount for his salary goes against the American dream described above. Not only that but to reform the healthcare system would require an overhaul of our education system and how people pay for it since most of their education is paid for by loans not grants. In essence there wouldn’t be a doctor that could afford to get the education making a fixed government controlled wage. The only way to solve both issues would be at the same time and at a cost in taxes that would be well above what Americans would stand for. The average Danish worker pays 63% of their wage in taxes! I hope this cleared my point up a bit since it was pretty much the same thing I typed. I definetely have not majored in writing!
Patrick, you do realize that you compared an M-16 to a nuclear weapon right? That’s alot of apples to compare to one orange! If I reemember correctly thats 145 neutrons and 94 protons compared to a 62 grain bullet. I think there is a bit of disparity there!
Ok, maybe that wasn’t one of my best moments.
I guess the point I was clumsily trying to make was that if the people need to have access to the same kind of weaponry that the government does, then where do you draw the line? Nuclear weapons are certainly an idiotic example, but what about grenade launchers or organizations buying a combat chopper? I think Randy made that point very well later in the show though, so maybe I shouldn’t try to repeat it more clumsily…
great episode. i think it is really sad that the only rational discourse i have heard between democrats and republicans since before the US election is on a podcast hosted by a french guy. The extreme level of polarization between the two groups can not be healthy for the country as a whole.
One question i did have was on the issue of gun control and religion. Both Republicans were very quick to turn to the constitution on the gun ownership issue. Driving home the idea that the constitution does not seek to restrict gun ownership. Yet when the conversation turned to religion on the very next topic there was no mention about the first amendment and the separation of church and state. while the language ’separation of church and state’ is not in the amendment there is a long standing tradition of this in US supreme court decisions and references to the first amendment. For two people who were such rabid defenders of the constitution 5 minutes before i thought they were pretty ‘wishy-washy’ on religious fundamentalists inserting their agenda into legislation.
The first amendment has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. Actually the whole idea of the seperation is a fallacy. The actual amendment is –
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So the government will not establish a religion I.E. The Anglican church or the church of England. (I think the national religion of France is Catholic BTW) In addition the government will not pass any law stopping people from worshiping. So just as we cannot have a national religion, we cannot ban a religion either. Thats it.
The idea of a seperation between church state is found in the federalist papers, I think. I am not up on my source, but I believe it was in a letter that Jeferson wrote. It has never been enacted in law in any way.
So people have every right to try and pass laws based on thier religious beliefs, and everyone else has the right to vote agianst those laws. In this way we are all equal. In my mind there is no problem with them trying to insert thier agenda, it’s our job to not let crazy laws get passed, regardles sof thier source.
I took a Constitutional Law class a few years back and this came up as a matter of point. Our professor asking us if we had a right to privacy or if there was a separation of church and state. Many of us said, myself included, that there was which he challenged us with a simple question, where? Come to find out both are not in the Constitution but are implied rights that have been argued within American Law since the inception of the constitution in 1791. These implied rights today are very much passionately fought for as individual freedoms but still do not appear nor ever have appeared in the Constitution. The reality in America is there is not a separation of Church and State or persists in any other country I can think of, some try but most fall well short of it. In the end religion is at the very center of people’s ethics and/or values. These two things always drive an individual’s political thoughts, personal agendas or social views.
I really enjoyed this episode although I think it turned out to be a bit more of why many Conservatives are upset with the Republican Party than some might have expected. But I think that is a pretty accurate picture of the current state of affairs. For example, quoting Glenn Reynolds in today’s Wall Street Journal on the Tea Party movement:
“There’s good news and bad news in this phenomenon for establishment politicians. The good news for Republicans is that, while the Republican Party flounders in its response to the Obama presidency and its programs, millions of Americans are getting organized on their own. The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama’s policies, aren’t especially friendly to the GOP.” – Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
I think we have the makings of an extremely interesting midterm election in 2010.
Like Patrick, I am French. Unlike Patrick though, I live in the great US of A.
I have to say that when I saw the title of the Special episode of the Phileas Club, I got really excited.
I would like to raise a few questions I had while listening to the podcast and maybe Brian, Richard, Randy and Patrick can try to answer them.
1- I am not totally convinced that Republicans lost the last presidential election because GOP supporters found that spending was out of control (while tax cuts were being made). Spending was out of control yes, but when related to the Irak war, not to government spending. It is my opinion that a large majority of americans (should I say USAns?
), including republicans, disapproved the use of vast money resources to fund an unpopular war while the economy was in disarray.
2- Now gun regulation and Republicans. Being european, I guess, might impair my understanding but I will say one thing, I do not believe individuals can (or should) carry guns…whether or not they live in low density areas of the country. I dislike vulgarizing facts but violence always tends to lead to more violence. Why gun regulation is an inappropriate consideration? A recent shooting occurred in the retirement home in the past weeks and a man carrying a hunting riflle shot 8 people. The man was killed by a young police officer responding to 911 call. In this case, the weapon was not an Uzi nor an M-16 (Patrick’s fav weapon), but a simple hunting weapon. No need to get extra clearance for owning these. The problem lies deeper I believe. Men are, per essence, faulting. That’s why civilized societies have police forces. To regulate order. They are trained professionals not civil militia. What I am getting at is that instead of trying to regulate guns, guns should be banned…and police forces should be greatly developed to protect civilians and prevent crimes (and clean streets from unregulated weapons).
3- Religion & GOP. It is clear that religion has become a prominent feature of the Republican party. As both Brian and Richard mentioned, religion is used as a moral barometer. Nonetheless, I disagree that political decisions (impacting all branches of society) should not be based on religion beliefs for it leads to radical extremes. We are in the 21st century and as political leader, you can not use “an eye for an eye” as your moto for solving crisis. As a discussion point, i would like to point that this is found in the old testament if my memory does not fail me. In the New Testament, it says (I paraphrase) you shall not reply to someone who slaps your face. Calm assertive behavior is usually a good quality to possess as a leader.
4- I was sad to see that the healthcare/education issues received so little attention despite blatant differences between Democrats and Republicans. Also true for environmental questions. During the last presidential campaign, there was intense debate between candidates on new energy technologies/oil dependency. Republicans were well anchored on positions favoring offshore drilling and continued dependence on oil (regardless on whether it is produced in the US or outside, this is just anecdotal).
5- I forgot my last point but I’ll try to post it later if my brain manages to function normally again.
Finally thanks to Richard, Brian, Randy and Patrick for providing this platform! Love the show!
Hey Sylvain, thanks for the comment.
1. I would have to say that, as much as I love Obama and all that his election represent, I think most people agree that what really gave him the victory was the economic situation… Not to say that he would have lost otherwise, but still.
2. Well my friend, here we get to a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with you, but I think arguments can be made both ways…
3. In that example that you give, I think the “an eye for an eye” philosophy doesn’t have a lot to do with religion… It’s more likely a philosophy that finds justification in religion. And even though he old testament is full of talion law, I think it would be difficult to find a more peaceful figure than Jesus Christ, which most of the warmongers in the GOP say they take their teachings and moral compass from.
4. Agreed.
5. Ok.
And thank you for listening!
All right Sylvan I will do my best
1. I think Obama got the election due to 2 main reasons. He seemed a bit stronger on the economy as he had so little time in the congress, and the Republicans sucked up most of the blame for the crisis. Second, most conservatives did not like John Mcain. He seemed to be more democrat light than a republican, even after he made the move to the right.
2. The reason we need to own guns is for the reasons I stated in the show. To oppose tyrany. An armed populace is a powerful populace. You must remember the right to govern in the US comes from the people. We lease the right to have power to those above us. being armed is imperitive to enforcing that ideal.
For example the 4th amendment of the constitution states -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How shall I keep a government official out of my home if I am unarmed? If I am armed I will be in a position to enforce my rights. All the rights in the Bill of rights are also equal. they are all important and every one of them need to be protected as they go together and enforce one another.
While I agree that the type of shooting you mentioned are tragic. I wish they would not happen, but I see them as part of the system. As I stated in the show I feel that more people need to be educated about weapons so that they know how to react to them and with them.
But the bottom line is that the right bear arms is one of an Usans basic rights. So we are allowed to bear these arms as part of a fundamental part of the Usan system.
3. Religion – when you really break it down a religion is just a belief system. Some are more extreme than another but you cannot ban them. A person saying that abortion should be outlawed because the bible says so is just the same as a veagan saying that no one should eat meat, ever. It is part of their belief system and they are entitled to try and push that belief.
There are all kinds of moral and belief systems in play in peoples life. As i see it any one of them can be valuable or stupid as hell, it all depends on where you sit. In this manner of looking at things you have to allow all lines of thought. This is why we have votes, that is how you block crazy laws, but we should allow all thought, exclusion is bad.
4.I can give you the basic conservative argument on the environment – It is not mans fault. ba boom. Global warming is not a man made threat, it is part of the natural cycle of the planet. I invite you to check out the medivevil warm period – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period. It was much like it is now, but no SUV’s.
The idea that all environmental change is caused by man, and that the sun has no effect is silly. Volcanoes regular spew out more pollutants than we have in our entire existence. That makes me very skeptical about man made environmental change on a global scale.
Now this is not to say that being “green” as it were, is a bad thing. I think anything that is cleaner and more efficient is good thing. We all want clean air and clean rivers and a better world, but there is a balance.
5. Since you forgot I’ll assume you really liked me on the show and you were about to suggest I be on again. Either that or your hungry. If so, I hear sandwiches are all the rave right now.
P.S. Sorry for any gramatical errors. I am a bad typist.
Thanks for your feedback Patrick and Richard, appreciated!
Since it’s Earth Day today, I will briefly comment Richard’s point about the environment first. I agree with you when you say that not “all environmental change is caused by man”, however I would like to indicate here that the impact of man on the planet is a widely accepted phenomenon by the entire scientific community. Clearly our planet is subject to cycles in an ever-changing universe, but mankind had and has an enormous repercussion on temperature, air/water/soil quality change. The link you provide clearly illustrates this point, highlighting the effect of the industry revolution starting in the 1900-1930 in western societies (generating an increase for coal-dependent energy). Man’s demand for more energy has helped boosting progress in technologies and medicine. Let’s not forget that we live much longer now than in the 1800. This also contributes to environmental changes in my opinion.
Quickly I want to briefly come back to the point Richard made about gun regulation. It is my belief, maybe naively, that the notion of armed populace opposing/protecting against tyranny is not applicable anymore. Who was the last governing tyrant in modern western societies? (maybe apart Maggie Thatcher…please no mail UK readers
). Similarly, France changed some of the laws in our civil code written under Napoleon’s regime because society evolves. The US are undoubtedly one of the most powerful (if not the most) countries in the world and I have a hard time believing that a state governor will declare independence and start a secession to invade neighbor states.
As for the point that the right to govern in the US comes from the people, it is also true for many democratic countries around the world. They too delegate their rights to elected individuals. I would respectfully disagree that “being armed is imperitive to enforcing that ideal”. Representatives and Senate members are chosen by the people for the people. If they fail to represent the values and ideals of the people that put them in power, they simply will not get re-elected (some can even be impeached). I do not understand why being armed would change anything to this notion. Democratic (and peaceful) ways are in place in our societies to enforce that our representatives are faithful to the values they represent. I sense now that I am digressing slightly but I believe we are hitting a crucial point that could allow us to better understand why Republicans/conservatives are so attached to this point in the US Constitution.
Also, I have doubts that education will solve the gun issue, even though I am a strong believer that education has many virtues. Most shooting/killing incidents happen to educated as well as uneducated individuals regardless of their expertise with gun handling/knowledge. The type of didactic session Richard proposed in the show could have some value for preventing kids to getting hurt while “playing” with dad’s gun. Other than that situation, I am afraid that a lot of teenagers, already struggling with their own identity, might feel empowered in the presence of guns and therefore amplify the problem. I hope my views do not appear too pessimistic, I am just trying to get to the core of the issues (at least I’d like to think so) mentioned in the Podcast.
This last topic is really fascinating and is deeply anchored in the american society.
Finally to finish on a far less serious note, I can not remember that damn 5th question that crossed my mind while listening to the show…I guess I’ll have to listen to it again! O my, more republican talks
hahaha
First let me say, I love this. It’s great to talk to intelligent people who disagree, and not have “you’re an idiot” thrown at me. It’s refreshing.
To your environmental point. That man has impact is undeniable, it’s the amount of impact that is in question, and the science is not settled there. I just find the fact that a lot of global warming studies ignore the activity of the sun very disturbing. I’m going to leave this here as this is a topic for another day. It is very long and involved. I just wanted to get the basics out there.
For gun control it is very basic for me. It is a right we as Americans have. Period. Same as free speech same as the protection against search and seizure, and my right to a jury trial. They are all equal and all important. What you are talking about is more what Randy was saying in the show. The problem comes from poor urban areas and bad social situations. I think violence would go on those areas regardless of guns. While I agree that guns escalate that problem, I think it is a separate issue with weapons as a tagline attached.
I also must warn you and everyone else against the “that will never happen” argument. It is a strawman, and very niave. Things like this may seem like they would never happen, but they have in the recent past. At various times a democratic government has tipped into dictatorship. By having these rights in place we assure that the can never happen.
A great example, yet on a much smaller scale is going on all over the US. In the last 20 years various states passed seatbelt laws. These laws require you wear a seat belt, but they were written to not be a primary offense. So you would not be pulled over for it. They were passed with this ideal, it would be sort of an add on. “You will never be pulled over for not wearing a belt. It will never happen”. It’s happening. Never ever fall into the “it will never happen” trap. It can always happen.
As far as the right to bear arms is concerned, we all have the right to self-defense. It’s just a matter of how you go about it. In the U.S., most believe that owning and possessing a firearm is a fundamental right. And, if you respect the right to free speech (the 1st amendment) and the right to privacy (the 4th amendment), well then you also have to respect the 2nd amendment. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like/dislike.
As to gun rights being just a conservative issue, you can find plenty of democrats that support the right to bear arms, particularly in western states. I live in New Mexico and most of our Congressional caucus gets high marks from the National Rifle Association.
Also, while the Federal constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms, you should also look at the State constitution as most not only guarantee the right to bear arms, but provide much more expansive rights/protections for gun owners.
I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. I served in the Marines and have a powerful respect for firearms and I am technically proficient in their use. I don’t play with my guns as they are not toys. I have a license to carry a concealed firearm and I had to take a 20 hour class and a criminal background check prior to having that license issued to me. In New Mexico, one can carry a gun legally in public so long as it is not concealed (unless one has a concealed weapons license) and, believe it or not, there are places in New Mexico I have been to where it is not uncommon to see people packing a pistol on their belt.
I don’t always carry a pistol with me, but I almost always have one in my car. I am the person you want to carry a firearm because I am responsible and I know how and when to use it. Since New Mexico has enacted the concealed carry law in 2004, there have been at least two instances where licensees have used their weapons to defend themselves and others. In particular, a licensee in a Walmart shot and killed a man who stabbing his estranged wife in the store, thereby saving her life. If he had not been there, that woman would undoubtedly have been killed. A woman with a concealed weapons license in Colorado shot and killed an attacker who was bent on committing a mass atrocity on the people of her church. So a person with a firearm in the right situation can save lives.
Additionally, studies have shown that less than 1% of people who get a concealed weapons license have that license revoked for mishandling their firearm. This shows that proper education and training can a have positive effect on society.
You can’t count on the police to protect you. 99% of the time, they are showing up after something has already happened.
I think we all understand the issues, and it is mostly a matter of opinion at this point. I can see how people would argue that the right to bare arms was instituted in a very different time, but I also am very receptive to the argument that you can’t start picking and choosing amendments.
The one thing I disagree with though is the idea that guns will protect you. Not because it isn’t true, but because it plays on the very pernicious argument of total security. You tell people: “hey look, had you had a gun, you would have been *safe*!!” (insert scary graphic here).
The problem is, you can’t be *safe*. You can’t make sure that nothing will ever happen to you. It could be a mad man in the street with a knife, it could be a swine flu virus and it could be aliens landing in your back yard. The point is that you need to evaluate the benefits and the disadvantages of the right to bare arms, not just wave the idea of insecurity. Fear is always the easy argument.
So I’m not saying security is not a valid argument, I’m just saying the downside *might* not be worth the upside, and it should at least be considered.
I guess my thoughts can be summed up as: I really don’t like FUD. And it’s used a lot these days unfortunately.
What’s FUD?!
I think you make some good points, Patrick. Ultimately, a society has to make its own decisions as to where to draw the line. In my experience, Americans in general are more skeptical of government power while Europeans tend to have less of a problem. For many Americans, the right to own a firearm goes beyond having one for protection–some people like to exercise their rights, not unlike someone who likes to vote. For me, possessing a firearm is a huge responsibility which I do not take lightly. Most of my firearms have trigger locks on them (so in case someone gets a hold of one, they can’t use it–I’m especially wary because I have children in the house). One thing I cannot stand is an idiot who does not know how to handle a firearm and I have actually disarmed people who I felt were being irresponsible with them–maybe not the smartest thing to do, but my Marine training kicks in. Firearms give the bearer a huge power–the power to kill. As we know from Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. However, I have been shooting guns since I was eight years old and was taught how to handle them responsibly by my father and firearm safety was further ingrained in my head during my Marine years.
It’s probably a good thing for France that it restricts firearms. The people seem to be for it. But it would not be a good thing in the United States. What works for one society does not always work for others.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Very common rhetorical technique that gets people to where you want them by scaring them. Again, just to be clear, I’m not saying that’s what’s happen here, just clarifying the concept.
Patrick,
During this podcast you mentioned that France has a very low rate of charitable donation per capita. This past weekend we were visiting friends in Montreal. At one point in his career my friend had run a charity and he commented that it was a lost cause in Quebec as the majority French population of Quebec generally felt that taxes constituted charity and traditionally donated very little per capita to charities.
So my question Patrick, would you say is this a French cultural trait or just a coincidence?
Hmmm that’s interesting. I’m not sure exactly; for France I would say it’s definitely because we already pay a lot of money in taxes and we consider it social help (which is is). Also, we don’t have as much available income left after taxes. I don’t really know the tax situation in Canada so I couldn’t say if it’s the same situation… Maybe there’s something inherently anti-charity about the French psyche!
So, will there be a push in the Netherlands to outlaw possession and ownership of automobiles due to the recent mass killing of five people and grievous wounding of eleven others on the streets of Amsterdam? This automobile violence is getting out of control!
Oh come on, you *know* this is different.
It was a rhetorical point, but an illustrative one. As you pointed out, how safe can you be? Actually, in the United States, cars kill more people than guns do. And I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution where it says I have a right to own a car…