My conclusion is that the modern republican party hates democracy and wishes to create a one-party state with itself as the ruling party elite (of course).
I reached this conclusion via the following path:
The modern republican party is defined primarily by three key features:
1) A relatively narrow ideological focus (small tent vs big tent) that tends toward exclusionary, rather than inclusionary (examples here are a relative intolerance of faiths other than Christianity, a rather extreme view on immigration, and a rather parochial view of women’s health issues, esp. abortion and contraception).
2) Purity tests and purgings to ensure that all accepted members OF said party are like-minded, pay sufficient fealty to the to the primary policy positions, and generally march in lock-step on all issues (those who do not are either not let in to begin with, or chased off if they happen to get in).
3) a stated desire for a permanent majority and primary decision-making power BY this body.
I ask the following questions:
1) Do the above constitute a fair assessment of today’s republican party?
2) In what way is a party constituted as above compatible with democracy and democratic ideals, where multiple viewpoints are encouraged?
A fundamental component of democracy and democratic ideals is the notion of compromise.
The republican party self identifies as the “Party of No.”
The republican party has made use of an unprecedented number of pocket holds, filibusters, and other parliamentary tricks to invoke “the tyranny of the minority” over the duly elected majority, requiring a super-majority to get ANYTHING done. See here and here for a quick overview.
The republican party has routinely attempted to de-fund previously passed duly established laws that do not agree with the key tenets of its party platform in an attempt to subvert the rule of law. Ref: Here, here, and here for but a few examples.
and finally, this:
I ask the following question:
1) Can it be fairly said that the republicans are, and have shown, a willingness to compromise?
So if you have a group that’s decidedly small tent and of a fairly narrow ideological focus. If that group seeks to hold power over others, even when in the minority. If that group is known for its intolerance of the beliefs of others, and for its unwillingness to compromise, which is among the most basic tenants of democratic governance, what other conclusion can you possibly draw?