It should come as no surprise: the Republican party has a horrible marketing team. When you've got characters like Limbaugh and Coulter speaking on behalf of an entire political party, who wouldn't point the finger and criticize? As with any group, it's often the fringe crazies who get pinned into representing the beliefs of the entire organization. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?
Republicans are often branded by Democrats as being selfish, lacking in compassion, and warmongers. They only care about their personal wealth and would never want to pay "their fair share" (this phrase has been tossed around a lot lately and I can't stand the hypocrisy of those who utter it, but I digress). If a country is irritating them, they bomb it and impose democracy. The reason people are poor is because they don't work hard enough and let laziness get the best of them. Of course, these are all caricatures that Democrats have created in order to paint Republicans as the sharks of Wall Street who want to enforce a caste system in our country rivaled by the likes of India.
The truth is that the core message of the Republican party is really quite simple: what's in the best interest of society? The problem with many government-run welfare programs is that they are not tailored to the individual; they are merely a band-aid on the gaping wound of societal issues within our country.
The clever guise of the Democratic party is that it's a party of compassion. It's a party that looks out for the overlooked in society, the underdog. So, they go out and vote certain people into office, vote to amend the constitution, and vote to pass propositions and legislation. But the compassion usually doesn't extend beyond the vote. Oh sure, they feel great about themselves for the "social justice" freedom fighter they just voted into office, but there's little in their lives that actually display any true compassion. Voting's easy because other than coloring in a circle on a ballot, it doesn't actually demand anything of you. To use a previous analogy, the Democratic party has an excellent marketing team (in that it's able to make the public believe certain things about it that just aren't true), but it doesn't have the greatest employees. Most of the Democrats I know belong to the party because it's a party of compassion, but aside from voting on social issues, there isn't much compassion to be found in their daily lives. They don't serve at food banks, they don't give money to non-profits, they make racist jokes at other's expense, and they won't even look a homeless person in the eye. They have no problem spending other people's money (via taxes), but when it comes to fronting the cash out of their own pockets, now that's a different story. A quick aside: did you know studies have shown that Republicans consistently donate more of their own money than any other political party (Source)? Now, I'm not saying this is the case for every Democrat (in fact, I know some very compassionate Democrats who have excellent motives), but I can only speak to what I've seen in my personal life, which a majority the time sadly mirrors what I've just described.
However, what they fail to understand is that the government will never be able to show compassion (DMV, anyone?). The government is not a person. The government is an institution. Institutions don't know emotion, compassion, or concern. Institutions know data and statistics. And this is the root of the Republican message: the government will never be able to take the place of your local food bank, the nearest homeless shelter, your church, or your next door neighbor. Goodness knows it tries, but there's a coldly inhuman, robotic nature to the way government does things. "Next in line, please!" That's not compassion, that's a checklist. We should have learned from the past, but we haven't yet. The pilgrims, our nations first fathers, tried a disastrous experiment of creating a communal-type society where everyone received equal food, shelter, and land, and regardless of the effort you put in, your take-home pay was equal to your neighbors. This created bitterness and near mutiny, as Joe the Pilgrim who sat around all day sipping moonshine received the same bounty as his next door neighbor, despite having none of the effort (Source). It was quickly decided that individually-owned land and capitalist-based commerce was the best route, and once their societal standards were changed, success for all sprung forth. The hard-working were rewarded for their effort and the lazy were given incentive, in the form of poverty, to work harder. It was at that point that his neighbors were able to confront Joe in his ill-intentions and address his core issue of laziness directly. We've stripped society of its motivation. No, I am not saying that we need to get rid of all social programs for the mentally handicapped, injured, and unable, but our "one size fits all" approach is having generational, devastating effects on society.
Don’t you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” And now we’re getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don’t slack off in doing your duty.
-2 Thessalonians 3:10
