“Populist Republicans”: Forget about families & helping communities through financial hardship…

Perhaps the voters won’t be so forbearing moving forward…

Kevin Lemarque | Reuters

Over the weekend, as the American Rescue Act successfully garnered enough votes in the Senate, our “populist R’s” showed their negligence to the American people, yet again. As expected, although somewhat unforeseen — considering the significance of the bill — all 49 R’s voted against it. This contemptible showing of impudence to the American public comes as no revelation; though it will not be forgotten by voters, particularly swing voters. People need help, acutely, and R’s are more content to claim the economy can recover without more assistance. Furthermore, they are obstinately conceding that we can ill afford to add to the deficit — even though R’s had voted for 4 trillion dollars of assistance during the Trump presidency.

Thankfully, Democrats pushed through and ensured our country can proceed to move forward with financial reform; to find a way to combat the bleak hardship COVID-19 imposed among a myriad of communities and marginalized people. Doing the people’s work, as I like to put it. R’s are satisfied to imply: millions of people will just find a way to get back the employment they previously had — even though it’s virtually nonexistent, perhaps forever. I was even surprised to see Collins, Murkowski, and Romney all vote no. So, for R’s, it was not to be, as even the “moderate” R’s reduced their investment to the American people to about zero. They played politics with it, even though polling showed over 60 percent of Americans supporting the bill. Personally, I think it would have been extremely advantageous for these “moderates” to vote with the Democrats, as they might have been able to recruit some swing voters, but I suppose they think they have enough stock with the Republican base.

In a piece by Christopher Buskirk in The New York Times, I found an interesting realization, which was ineludible.

There is something very fundamentally wrong with how the R’s are interpreting the financial norms of the country, which is this idea that people want to “live off” the government. At what point do R’s decide that this substantial incongruity is not valid? For the economy to be prosperous as a whole, families and communities must have a chance to flourish — and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure this is happening. If our country supports the belief that middle-class individuals are entitled to circumstantial sustenance to allow their families to thrive — and I truly believe people desire this in both RED and BLUE states — then we must accept the needed resources of the federal government. Should it be acceptable that two incomes are needed to raise a family? I don’t think so.

Once again, this refers back to an idea I presented in a previous posting, which is the failure of the R’s party amongst younger voters. Young people have been placed into a desolate position for many years, especially with the increase in college tuition and the general cost of living, just as Buskirk conveys. Political debate is a practice that needs to occur within our governing body, but at some point, the folks debating need to realize that we have a substantially onerous condition for young people in this country. It’s no longer acceptable for R’s to disregard the issue at hand, and young people are consciously aware of this.

So why does it have to be this complicated with R’s?

In another piece, by Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, we see that it does tend to come down to RED states and BLUE states, that R’s are incessantly defiant to change based on assuming their base will go against them — although the reality is that people in these RED states need the help just as much.

Trump exposed the ineffectual truth the last four years: R’s don’t see BLUE states; they only see RED states and have spent all their time attempting to indoctrinate their constituents on the premise of demonizing social assistance. Look at the example Sargent cites: they largely maintain that model centered on weak unions and low wages, and tend to have smaller governments and far fewer urban centers. Are we to infer R’s are asking these provinces in RED states to accept an underprivileged way of living? Seems like it. Furthermore, are we to assume their constituents agree to this? From what we saw in the last Presidential election, I suppose so.

The GOP has such a resilient hold on the constituents who would rather choose not to receive a boost in healthcare insurance because it would go against the same propagandized rhetoric we referenced above. In most cases, certain RED states are so against the ACA, that they are content with not having any coverage at all — even though we have numerous examples of communities in these states suffering disproportionally from COVID-19.

Irrevocably, we ask ourselves: what becomes of the R’s, if they continue down this road? I think we are already seeing the results, as Georgia represented a significantly vital example of what happens when a party neglects its constituents based on wealthy backers holding the middle-class hostage in these communities. Biden’s Rescue Act presents an opportunity for millions of young parents to grow their families equitably, irrespective of what state they reside in. I’ve personally felt, for years, that it’s objectionable to just assume younger voters will continue siding with an immoral party; a party with no forebodings about future efforts to build financial stability, which all Americans deserve…

Works Cited:

1. Buskirk, Christopher. “There is a Generational Divide Among Republicans.” The New York Times. March 8, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/opinion/romney-republicans-child-allowance.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage. Accessed March 8, 2021.

2. Sargent, Greg. “The GOP scam is getting worse — for Republican voters. A new study shows how.” The Washington Post. March 8, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/08/study-political-economy-red-states/. Accessed March 8, 2021.

CA-based, perpetually hopeful for the progress of society… Follow me on Twitter @andrewnintzel22

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store