An insiders view of how modern Republicanism works

Filed in National by on December 13, 2012

Jeremiah Goulka is an ex-Republican. He writes about American politics and culture with a emphasis on security, race, and the Republican Party. His story of how he came to leave the GOP is an interesting and (sadly) rare instance of someone realizing that what they accept as reality is a fiction.

“My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into “creat[ing] our own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains why study after study shows — examples here, here, and here — that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.”

The whole thing is worth a read.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DEvoter302 says:

    An interesting observation is how Republicams claim to be pro liberty. Yet they contradict that ideal when they speak of strengthening the military, deny equal recognition of voluntary contracts (gay marriage), corporate subsidies, the war on drugs, and not understanding how the case of rape, incest, or abuse fundamentally change the situation for abortion (any one of those factors proves the woman’s actions weren’t voluntary, therefore self responsibility no longer applies).

    Good article and true on many points. The author shows he is more of a Jeffersonian or conservative libertarian rather than a democrat or progressive. His views were what conservatives idealized before the Republican Party(which was taken over by the Whigs during Lincoln’s terms) hijacked the term conservative and altered the meaning. Modern day republicans and the tea party are not conservative, they are as progressive as democrats because they both seek institutionalism. The democrats institution is the social system while the Republicans is militarism and protectionism (both sides share corporatism). Both are equally damaging and prevent individual liberty and natural law from being enjoyed.

    If true conservatives grew and eventually took over the Republican party then we may very well see a day where democrats and republicans agree on more than they disagree and compromises can be made.

  2. anonymous says:

    Crimes Against Humanity

    “The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science — and Reality” is the article referenced within the article that is especially interesting. Especially in the context of republican politicians.

    Republicans will tell you burning fossil fuels is as harmless as exhaling. It’s a pitiful analogy; the Earth is smothering. And, they want to burn more. Republicans always want more.

    When you tell them what climate scientists say, it doesn’t penetrate pass their glazed eyes, their tight lipped expressionless face. They’ll eagerly tell you – there’s so much more coal, oil and gas to be had. Talking to a fossil fueled republican is futile. What could possibly infiltrate their lack of insight, lack of caring, lack of hope? When trying to get a republican to see a larger picture, perhaps Apotheosis of a Family, Wyeth, they just see the carbon burning. Are their brains so locked in disbelief, so possessed by money or power, so deep in denial, so searching of obedient acceptance, so frozen by misconception, that they are forever hopeless causes? Hopeless causes that sit in our halls of government. Hopeless causes that never miss a reason or chance to further their secret flaming agenda?

    Perhaps they are like the TV show hoarders, insulated, removed, miserable, trapped in their stone cold minds, that to see a ‘Got Junk’ workman remove one handful of excrement, rotten food and hair balls, (offshore drill, shale field, or mountain,) would have their walls come crushing down on them. WHO TOLD YOU, YOU CAN TOUCH MY STUFF. GET OUT! LEAVE MY WEALTH ALONE!

    If not education, if not legitimate science, if not the threat they pose to themselves, the threat they pose to their own families’ safety, their own children’s futures, the planet, what then could penetrate past the burning republican death wish.

    Professional therapy, family intervention, 20 workmen and a street full of “Got Junk” trucks, sometimes works for your average hoarder.

    The problem with the fossil fueled money hoarders is, they aren’t just a neighborhood eyesore. They would bring the World down with them – and they couldn’t care less. And unfortunately for America and the World, these are the stone coal minds republican politicians serve. Have the public lands, tax free permits to pollute, the lack of regulations, the pipelines, more billions, the people’s air, lands, the waters, life as man has known it.

    At some point, to ‘deny’ is to ‘lie.’ Here might be a better title for an article. “Even Educated Conservatives Lie about Science..and Reality.”

    No time left to care ‘why’ republicans lie. Time to call such lies, crimes against humanity.

  3. DEvoter302 says:

    Please dont be an extremist. Your last sentence places your radical subjectivism in the same category as those who commit the crimes against humanity, yet claim they are righteous in their pursuit.

    Educated conservatives who don’t condone malinvestment in green energy do so because the history of the planet consists of constant climate change. Would switching to renewable clean energy be good for the environment? Absolutely, and for our health as well. But it wouldn’t prevent a natural process, which evidence suggests is currently overdue according to the trend of climate change. They just don’t think the economic and implicit costs are worth the return you get by switching to clean energy. In no way is that a crime against humanity. That’s an opinion.

  4. anonymous says:


    DEvoter302 must be reading too much Ayn Rand Objectivism whereby (lack of) reality exists in a la la land where the moral purpose of one’s life is one’s own happiness and self interests, to be protected by capitalism. In other words. To hell with everyone else, especially the poor, the voiceless young, right DEvoter?

    Devoter, (devoted to your own self interests,) kindly explain why the air, lands and waters are for corporate interests to pollute for profits.

    We are now seeing republicans as weapons of obstruction in our government, to achieve your type of rationalized self-interest; where it is OK if Even Edjicated Conservatives Lie About Science…and Reality and the main cause of climate change offering lame excuses instead such as, it’s the ‘history of the planet” and some “natural process that is currently overdue,” as Devotr claims. I could insert hundreds of peer reviewed, legitimate, scientific studies here, dating back decades, confirming present data, but any educated fifth grader can search same.

    Instead DEvoter, explain why the over abundance of CO2 ISN’T a heat causing gas that is raising global temperatures. And kindly explain what HAS caused the CO2 and temperature to rise alarmingly, over the past 150 years. Also explain why 391.04 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere – doesn’t matter. (And do cite a few legitimate climatologists’, scientists’ peer reviewed work.) Stand behind what you say you ‘believe.’

    DEvoter states, “They {republicans, fossil fuel interests?} just don’t think the economic and implicit costs are worth the return you get by switching to clean energy.”

    Now that I believe.

    But the worthless “return” Devoter speaks of, is a livable planet for future generations. To understand that, a republican must be able to consider life beyond ‘his immediate self interests,’ and see past his long nose.

    So far, Devoted denier’s argument looks like this:

    M O N E Y vs. return to normal atmospheric conditions for future generations.

    I’ll said it again DEvoter302 – because the next generation can’t speak up yet.

    “Even Edjicated Conservatives Lie about Science …and Reality.”

    Those edjicated republican lies provide pollution profits and comfort for the offenders while changing the planet in disastrous ways for the next generations, I’ll call it what it is, Crimes Against Humanity. Yes, Devoter, the voiceless poor and children who can’t yet be heard, the struggling middle classes, are part of humanity and are some of the men (women and children) that are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

    If edjicated republican lies about science and reality eliminate their rights, that’s an issue for the courts.

  5. geezer says:

    “But it wouldn’t prevent a natural process, which evidence suggests is currently overdue according to the trend of climate change.”

    Do some research next time so you don’t embarrass yourself like this.

  6. DEvoter302 says:

    Your post seems more like an attack which is unwarranted. If you have that much aggression and fail to debate your point, then you should find an outlet for your aggression; maybe boxing. It could humble you. I will attempt to address your points:

    is an ally to individual liberty and law. Subjectivism has brought us the evils of mankind. It is the principle whereby it states because I think it, it shall be. The danger of subjectivism is the inability to compare it to principles to stay grounded in a truth. It’s a token of neo-liberalism, and why you often see attempts to ban things like soft drinks in shools. If idealizing objectivism is bad, that makes subjectivism even worse. It will lead you down te metaphorical rabbit hole.

    Corporate Profits and Pollution:
    I did not state, nor do I believe that corporations have a right to pollute the air and water limitlessly. Property rights originate with self ownership. It extends to the products of your labor which are an extension of your self. Land is included. If a corporation is poisoning yor water or polluting your air, then you have a remedy in the civil court system. To the extent they do not, the blame lies with the SCOTUS who consistently misinterprets the Constitution. I’ll leave the examples of individuals succeeding in a lawsuit against corporations to you. But in your post, I also detect the assumption that Republicans stand for corporatism. If you see in my other post, I mentioned democrats and republicans share this. They both subsidize polluters and/or corporations at the expense of the tax payer.

    CO2 & Climate Change:
    The increase in CO2 is linked to human action. Never did I deny that. The release of CO2 occurs from land. Water vapor is a green house gas. When pollution causes desertification, it sets an exponential increase in CO2 and vapor into place. Human pollution is exponential. However I would look to history to put your view in perspective. The highest levels of CO2 occurred during the highest levels of life on Earth. That period is where the oil in our ground originated from. Therefore climate change and increases in CO2 arent correlated with pollution, but can be a result of it. In other words you can have climate change without pollution, pollution and clinate change, Or pollution and no climate change. With that aside, even if human action did cause climate change, it would happen otherwise as it has since the Earth formed. So while I agree with you that corporations shouldnt be able to pollute my property, I disagree with you that science can prevent or alter climate change.

  7. DEvoter302 says:

    Common sense tells you climate change constantly occurs. Science agrees. Don’t embarrass yourself by denying something so evident.

  8. geezer says:

    Sorry, son, but that’s about as salient to the discussion as citing phases of the moon.

    Do your research, lazy one. You look even stupider citing tautologies as “reasoning.” Of course it constantly occurs — which is why climate researchers control for such events.

    Seriously, you’re going to set yourself up as an expert when tens of thousands of people who actually work in that field disagree with you? You’re as arrogant as you are stupid.

    Oh, Christ, now I see the comment in which you go full Randian. Here’s an idea: Go back to reading your Heinlein with one hand. You have nothing to add to any discussion here.

  9. geezer says:

    “The highest levels of CO2 occurred during the highest levels of life on Earth. That period is where the oil in our ground originated from.”

    When you understand the differences between plant and animal life, get back to us.

    “If a corporation is poisoning yor water or polluting your air, then you have a remedy in the civil court system.”

    When you understand the flaws in your Pollyanna-ish view of the equality of individuals vs. corporations, get back to us.