Monday, April 04, 2005


A friend sent me the following e-mail. I know she sent as a joke and a poke at me. Everyone enjoys a little goosing now and then. I don't know what she is, but she knows that I lean right.


The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities. Psychologists
and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through. The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics. A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy. If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to
Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs. For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether. But should they be allowed to marry?

What got me going about this e-mail is that it came right after the last post about physical attacks on conservatives (and Pat Buchanan).

Just a couple of quick notes: I've been told I'm hard-hearted, mean-spirited, a Nazi, etc before, but I'm not. Really. I don't have anything against poor people. I'd like them to become wealthy people. The facts bear out that this usually happens. As well as wealthy people becoming poor people. The phrase "shirt-sleeves-to-shirt-sleeves in 3-generations" is usually true. But my questioning the failure of 60+ years of government spending on a war of poverty with no results is maybe hurting the poor and maybe we should try something different is construed as evil.

That being said, if the Klan wanted to hurt the poor and minorities, they could never have done any better than Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. I drive through the end result of that every day. It's not nice. David Duke & Bull Connor would have signed up for that.

The ultimate proof I think is Charles Murray's (devil) trendline test:
His solutions, as he outlines them here, have a logical appeal if not an ideological one. Some he defends by exposing them to what he calls "the trendline test." He challenges his readers to "plot the proportion of Americans below the official poverty line from World War II (scholars have worked out the figures back that far) to the present, then superimpose on that graph the amount of money that government has spent trying to help the poor."

Do the same thing with the relevant figures that reflect progress in education, health care, safety, income or "deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled" on the nation's highways. In every case, he insists, the greatest improvement occurred before the government got involved with some program. For example, "the good effects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were bumps on top of a much larger, more powerful and healthier trend that was occurring in civil society and would have continued if the government had done nothing.")

Another thing that I think all people should beware of is the genetic aspects of homosexuality. If being a homosexual is genetic, then dread the day when the gay gene is found. A pre-natal homosexual holocaust would ensue. I predict that the homosexuality community will then become very pro-life.

Stay You.
Back to Main Page