That's pretty much one of the many points where the hypocrisy of the Republican stance becomes very evident. In order to really understand why this is the way it is, you need to understand the dynamics of a system where you can only choose between 2 guys, and both of them are very wealthy.Lukipela wrote:I'm not big on your politics really, because they sometimes seem very.. alien to me. The abortion thing is a good example really. As I undestand it the Rebuplicans are against a strong federal state, and possibly opposed to state goverments being too large/powerful as well? The argument seems to be both about the prohibitive cost of running a big inefficient goveremtnal organisation as well as an idealistic stance where goverment regulation and interference stifles personal freedoms, which are pretty important over there. So how do you connect that to wanting the government to acitvely regulate reproductive rights?
I mean, if you believe that life starts at conception that's a position I can respect. But then you either have to accept loads of individuals dying because the government can't interfere in your personal freedoms, or you have to institute a pretty intense human right's violation program where you test everyone regularly to see if they are pregnant. Or possibly to be more efficient, where you sterilize all males in the country and just store some frozen semen to ensure there are no unrecorded deaths.
The core of the Republican party, the real big names that make the real big decisions (and not necessarily in public, mind you), are all extremely wealthy individuals, most of whom are at the heads of, or at least in top positions in, some very large and profitable companies. These companies are primarily focused in industries like oil, tobacco, financial, and the like; lots of old money from old and fairly stagnant industries. As such, their personal interests lie in protecting their companies' and their own money as fervently as possible, hence why they favor lowering taxes on both corporations and the rich, and why they want to lessen or eliminate a lot of regulations on businesses. That's the wealthy part.
The "only 2 guys to choose from" part comes into play with issues like abortion, creationism, religion in schools, and similar. In order to form a solid base of support, the Republican party takes a hardline stance on these issues, which is very appealing to lots of voters in the southern and midwestern states, as well as other rural areas of the US. From that solid base, they'll than debate whatever other issues happen to be on voters' minds at the moment, trying to get swing voters to support them enough to get the majority. The Democrats do the same thing, enjoying a solid base in the northeast and west coast states, as well as other urban areas, with their more liberal policies on those positions. That's why they don't have to address their hypocrisy, because they're the only other choice. That's also why, outside of a few issues like these where it's a "one or the other" stance, both parties tend to say a lot of the same things.
Is our system not an especially good way to represent the will of the people? Eh, maybe, more choices would probably do a world of good for us. Is it going to change? Not on your life.