Core Values?

A recent Detroit News editorial claimed, "...those who subscribe to the core values of the Republican Party are getting queasy."  The editor was critical of the "WWE" show (his characterization) called the Presidential campaign, particularly that of the GOP.

But what really struck me was his use of the term "core values."  It seems to me that it has been the Republican Party leadership, what I usually refer to, disparagingly of course, as The Establishment, which has forgotten Republican "core values."  I'm not saying those values are good or bad, although you may know my views.  What I am saying is that the Establishment has abandoned them.

John Boehner was forced to resign because of pressure brought from his abandonment of traditional Republican principles.  His replacement, Paul Ryan, once thought to be a voice of reason (Oops!  Did I tip my hand?), seems intent on continuing with the Boehner policies.  Note, for instance, the 2016 budget that increases the national debt to $19 trillion (and that doesn't include the unfunded liabilities which increases that amount by triple or even much more).

What happened to the party of small government?  of low taxes?  of cutting the strangulation of gov't bureaucracy?  of not forcing me to use certain light bulbs, television sets, toilets, etc.?

Demanding majorities in the Senate and House in 2012 and 2014, the Republicans received them each election.  But what good did that do?  ObamaCare wasn't overthrown or defunded.  (And those of you who still support it, I welcome donations to offset the $2000 this year it will cost me, and about $5000--by the end of 2016--it will have cost me since its inception.)  Planned Parenthood hasn't lost any taxpayer money.  Spending goes up, up, up, with no end in sight.

So, have Republican Party "core values" changed?  If so, does that mean the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party?  Why, then, would traditional Republicans support it?

Are there any/many Republicans who have any courage?  It seems most of those elected fear being labeled.  What's wrong with being "the party of 'No!'?"  There is nothing noble in going along merely to get along.  Those who have tried to stand up to the government getting bigger and bigger and bigger, have been marginalized and emasculated.  They have been smeared and called names.  They have been penalized within the party by the Establishment.  Need an example?  Look no farther than Ted Cruz.  And I can name others.  Buck the Establishment's turn to bigger government, more spending and regulation and watch what happens.

I received a worried e-mail trying to make sense of "L'Affaire Trump."  As I've noted many times, it isn't about Trump.  It's about the Establishment, both Republicans and Democrats.  But the e-mail tried to analyze the allure of Trump.  The man is bombastic, lies left and right, is gross and insulting, etc., yet his popularity grows.  Who are these Trump supporters?

First, I fully understand why he has such a following.  Again, I don't think it's him.  Second, I am not ever going to denigrate those supporters.  No, they are not stupid or un- misinformed.  I will not criticize them.  Although I don't support Trump, I sympathize/empathize those who do.  I do think his style attracts a lot of folks, folks who have been changed by a changing sense of societal values.  He is confrontational.  But that draws people.  In sports, for instance, it's no longer enough to win or do well.  Now, to be really cool, it has to be "in your face!" or "We kicked their" collective bejabbers or some other such nonsense.  Watch any NFL or college game.  The fans who fork over $200 or more for an authentic jersey wear them and think they have, because they have the jersey, won the game.  "Grrrrrr," they growl in self-aggrandizing triumph.  We have become a society that embraces any sort of confrontation.  Look at the so-called "reality" television programs.  How many of them are based on confrontation?  (I can't give any real examples, since I don't watch them.  But I have heard from others.)  Confrontation.  Look at road rage.  Someone cuts off another and there's likely to be a chase, a fight, a shooting.  How about "dissing?"  It's OK to kill someone because another has been "dissed."  This past week, a guy bumped into another on a local dance floor.  Yep, it escalated into a shooting.  Confrontation--that's cool.  Of course, that's not all Trump backers, by no means.  But I think it explains a lot.

My brother recently wrote to me about the "demonizing" of politics and politicians.  Why, he asked, would any good, decent people want to be involved in that?  I agree, but am of two minds.  First, the demonizing is deserved, although I hesitate to generalize.  As I've written before, politics and, indeed, government seem to be based on foundations of deceit, dishonesty, and downright lying.  Campaign promises are made, willy-nilly, with no intentions of keeping them.  I know the adage, "You can't do anything if you aren't elected," but politicians are often elected on those promises--and they still don't do anything!  So, I think the demonizing is justified.

At the same time, there are some good ones out there.  They are smeared with the same broad brush of demonizing.  That's too bad.  That's the problem with generalizing, as legitimate as the generalizations are.  It's the same with teaching.  It's no secret I think the state of teaching in our schools is not very good, that most teachers are mediocre or worse.  But think of what that does to our good and great teachers--and, despite my rants, there are still many of them out there.  Like politicians, why would any competent, dedicated people go into teaching?  Teachers are scapegoats for practically everything.  The public rejoices at the emasculation of teacher unions, which have often been a detriment to quality education, but which have, at the same time, provided needed protections and advances.  Pay cuts are rampant, tossed in with higher costs for insurances, further eating into already dismal pay.  (Again, as I've noted over the years, good teachers are vastly underpaid; bad teachers are grossly overpaid.)  I could go on and on, but the picture is clear.

What is particularly aggravating for me is I have no real answers.  Well, I do, but they are very impractical, likely impossible considering the current state of affairs.  I don't know where to start.