Iowa Republican Platform is Seriously Crazy

Iowa Republican Platform is Seriously Crazy May 25, 2012

The Iowa Republican Party has long been one of the most right wing state parties in the country and their 2012 platform includes a whole bunch of crazy and stupid. You’re especially gonna love the preamble language about how much they love individual liberty:

As Republicans, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are never deprived of property or forced to sacrifice one’s values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. We defend the right of each individual to be free and to follow their own dreams in their own ways, unless the exercise of their freedoms infringes upon the valid rights of others.

Hey, I agree with all of that. They don’t, of course; it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric. If they really believed each individual is free to do what they want unless they infringe upon the rights of others, they wouldn’t also be against reproductive rights or equal rights for LGBT people. Or want to ban pornography. Or demand the prohibition of Gay Straight Alliances or any other group that advocates equality. And there’s plenty more hypocrisy:

We strongly oppose government monies being given to private organizations such as Planned Parenthood, AARP, ACORN, ACLU, and other groups which lobby for policies contrary to the views expressed in this platform.

Yeah, anyone who disagrees with them should be ineligible for any public grants of any kind. Those who agree with them, of course, should get it instead. Very nice. And that’s just the beginning of the crazy. They oppose requiring kids to go to school. I’m serious. Under education it says, “We opposed compulsory attendance laws.” They demand an investigation into ACORN, which hasn’t existed in three years. And then there’s this:

We support the elimination of the departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Commerce as well as TSA, FDA, ATF, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

You should read the whole thing. There’s so much insanity that it’s almost amusing.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • There’s a part in that pledge seeking to overturn Civil Rights laws.

    Yes, the Iowa Repugnants want to overturn CIVIL. Fucking. RIGHTS.

  • teawithbertrand

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.

  • My right to deny you rights should not be infringed! That’s what “inalienable” means, right?

  • Captain Mike

    The Department of Agriculture? What did they do?

  • Strangely enough if you try to cut and paste from that document, it becomes a letter salad.

    I just wanted to point out that they want to end all agricultural subsidies, especially for corn. That may not go over too well with the farmers raking in the dough.

  • d cwilson

    “End agricultural subsidies” – Yeah, I’m sure that will go over well in Iowa.

  • @Captain Mike: they want to eliminate the EPA, too, because the huge, corporate farms here in the Hawkeye State are brazen polluters and are universally hated by lefties like me. I mean, have you ever been downwind of a place raising 5,000 head of hogs in a confined area?

    Oh, and I hope everyone understands where Steve King comes from now. Disgusting.

  • Who Knows?

    We believe that health care is a privilege, not a right

    What do you say to the idea that health care is only for those who deserve it?

    We demand an end to the legal monopoly enjoyed by allopathic medicine and demand a level playing field for every legitimate health-care modality.

    And please! Give us fucking woo!!!!

  • Leo

    @7. cycleninja

    Oh, and I hope everyone understands where Steve King comes from now.

    Fingers crossed that he gets voted out with redistricting. It should at least be more of a challenge for him this year. However, there is a wackaloon named John Archer running in the 2nd district…not quite my district, but I’ve had to put up with his latest commercials. I wrote about him this morning. FTB won’t let me link to my blog. 🙁 Maybe if I break it up… themidwestatheist dot blogspot dot com

  • Dalillama

    See, this is the important bit

    …never deprived of property or forced to sacrifice one’s values for the benefit of others.

    This part means no tax money to be spent on anyone but them, for any reason, and you can’t stop them beating down the queers because that would mean sacrificing their ‘values’ for someone else’s benefit (i.e. for the benefit of us queers who don’t want to be beat on).

  • TCC

    We demand an end to the legal monopoly enjoyed by allopathic medicine and demand a level playing field for every legitimate health-care modality.

    I feel about this statement like I feel about suggestions that viable alternative scientific theories to evolution be taught in science classrooms: sure, once you provide the “legitimate health-care modality” to serve as a viable alternative. (Also, legal monopoly? Where is that coming from?)

  • iariese

    Ditto what @7 cycleninja says. Ending ag subsidies will never happen – the Iowa Farm Bureau OWNs the state.

  • Stevarious

    We demand an end to the legal monopoly enjoyed by allopathic medicine and demand a level playing field for every legitimate health-care modality.

    We’re tired of only being allowed to use medicine that works! We demand greater access to fake medicine!

  • Michael Heath

    Will we encounter any of the leaders of the Iowa party asked by the media to reconcile their pre-amble with their fierce opposition to the exercise of liberty by gays and secularists (which includes many Christians)?

  • Dalillama

    @Michael Heath

    Like I said above, they refuse to “sacrifice [their] values for the benefit of others.” That means that they get to continue attacking gays and secularists because we don’t have ‘values’ in their view, and they won’t give up theirs for our benefit.

  • plutosdad

    They want freedom and also want to get rid of the FDA. So they support legalizing drugs? Oh wait, the DEA is not on their lists of agencies to dissolve. That’s funny, you’d think it would be due to their love of liberty and distrust of government.

  • fastlane

    They want to get rid of the TSA? Ok, so there’s one thing in the middle of all the stoopid that I can get behind.

    Re: the health care bit quoted in 13…. is there a ‘legal’ monopoly? I’m curious what form this opposition would take in light of their stated views in the pre-amble. Shouldn’t people (and insurance companies) be able to discern and discriminate as part of their freedoms, as outlined in the pre-amble? Ow…now my brain hurts. I need a shot of whisky.

  • d cwilson

    (Also, legal monopoly? Where is that coming from?)

    They want to legalize malpractice.

  • D. C. Sessions

    The lovely thing about putting mischegoss in the party platform is that it declares these topics open season for people questioning the candidates.

    Not, mind, that any reporters actually will.

  • John Hinkle

    We demand an end to the legal monopoly enjoyed by allopathic medicine and demand a level playing field for every legitimate health-care modality.

    This must be wing code for “we want Medicare to pick up the tab for devil-repelling crystals and hospital prayer services.” Otherwise this would be covered under “sovereign over their own lives”, in which case they could pay for “every legitimate health-care modality” themselves.

  • John Hinkle

    Oh, and get your filthy Big Government paws of my Medicare.

  • John Hinkle

    Duh, off, not of. Did someone mention whiskey?

  • cafink

    Just to nitpick one point, it seems like their opposition to compulsory school attendance is one of their few beliefs that really is consistent with their “individual liberty” preamble, isn’t it?

  • D. C. Sessions

    cafink, the proximate point of “compulsory school attendance” is to remove the State from enforcing standards on homeschoolers.

    The ultimate objective is to kill public education.

  • cafink

    But strictly speaking, public education is a violation of individual liberty, in that it involves forcing people to pay for something they might not freely choose to, isn’t it?

    We can argue about whether that’s a good or bad thing, whether education is the kind of public good that is justifiable to fund with taxes. But irrespective of that argument, public education is clearly not consistent with their desire for everyone to be “sovereign over their own lives and are never deprived of property or forced to sacrifice one’s values for the benefit of others.”

  • steveradant

    Of the items on their hit list, seven were started under Democratic administrations, nine under Republican administrations, and one under the administration of that notorious Whig, Zachary Taylor.

    Poll question for the readership: Are Iowa Republicans anti-Republican, anti-Whig, clueless, or lying?

    Agriculture: A. Lincoln (R) 1862; G. Cleveland (D) 1889

    Education: Carter (D), 1979

    Homeland Security: W. Bush (R), 2002

    HUD: LBJ (D), 1966

    Energy: Carter (D), 1977

    Interior: Polk (D) / Taylor (W), 1849

    Labor: Taft (R), 1913

    Commerce: T Roosevelt (R), 1903

    TSA: W Bush (R), 2003

    FDA: Coolidge (R), 1927

    ATF: Nixon (R), 1972

    EPA: Nixon (R), 1970

    NEA: LBJ (D), 1965

    Fannie Mae: F Roosevelt (D), 1938

    Freddie Mac: Nixon (R), 1970

  • jimnorth

    I don’t mind if Compulsory education was banned. AFAIK, all of the 2-year and 4-years colleges and universities in my home state require a high school diploma, GED, or equivalent for admission.

    Also, I know too many farmers in my area who are voting for Archer anyway, regardless of his rhetoric or platform stance, simply because he is a republican. The hive mindset is very strong.

  • Michael Heath

    I read their platform; Ed’s “seriously crazy” description is understated. Right after these Iowa Republicans falsely claim they’re all about liberty a la T. Jefferson they immediately plow into demanding government prohibit all humans from controlling their own bodies, including these Republicans promoting prohibitions against assisted suicide.

  • escuerd

    cafink @ 25:

    But irrespective of that argument, public education is clearly not consistent with their desire for everyone to be “sovereign over their own lives and are never deprived of property or forced to sacrifice one’s values for the benefit of others.”

    It sure is consistent. But then, it’s a pretty stupid principle to take such a hardline stance on (and I don’t know that you’d even disagree with this, but think it’s worth mentioning). Strictly interpreted, it would also imply that no one should be compelled to pay taxes, for example.

    Individual autonomy is a good thing, but a sensible system will weigh it against other good things (like having a government, social safety net, an educated electorate, etc.) when there’s a trade-off rather than treating it as some fundamental principle that we must always be consistent with.

  • It like something written by that scary man who lives on every block. You know, the one down the street who keeps all the shades drawn, always looks angry and never returns a hello when you walk by while he’s tending the shrubs.

  • Matrim

    “I don’t mind if Compulsory education was banned. AFAIK, all of the 2-year and 4-years colleges and universities in my home state require a high school diploma, GED, or equivalent for admission.”

    The problem is that it isn’t the kids making the decision not to go to school, it’s the parents. By denying their children an education, they are effectively hamstringing them. This is one of those issues where the rights of the child are more important than those of the parent. Kinda like how parents aren’t allowed to beat their children to shit as a form of discipline.

  • StevoR

    @ 7. cycleninja says:

    Oh, and I hope everyone understands where Steve King comes from now. Disgusting.

    Steve King – do you mean like Stephen King, the horror authour? Whaa.. ?

    @9.Leo :

    Fingers crossed that he gets voted out with redistricting. It should at least be more of a challenge for him this year.

    Oh, okay. Clearly not. Never heard of him.

    ***

    Yeah, the Iowan Republican rhetoric sounds great; the contrast with what their policies and actions and beliefs actually are, well couldn’t be greater.

    By which I mean YIKES!

    Major leagues Hypocrisy.

    Major leagues like 50,000 fathoms below the sea hypocrisy!

  • jakc

    Part of this is understanding how this whole process works in Iowa for Republicans. Back at the caucuses, delegates were selected largely on their willingness to stay late. The Dem process is a little different, and Dems at least, at the first level, are able to allocate delegates by candidate. The significance is that Ron Paul supporters for example, get representation in excess of the support at the caucus, and others who are there to push ideas well outside of the mainstream, also get picked. That willingness to stay late ultimate leads to getting on the platform committee. By continuing that determination through the series of conventions (county, district, state), and by dragging out these meetings, it means some pretty weird crap gets approved late. Even when the convention is being chaired by a “business” Republican, it often happens that after a 12 hour plus meeting they just let the crazies pile stuff on (if nothing else, these are the people who love to fight about procedure), generally on the theory that no serious candidate (from the statehouse up) ever takes the platform seriously. Now, I’m not actually going to read this stuff, so I don’t know if this is a county or district platform (or proposed state platform as the state convention is not until June), but having been to various conventions for various reasons, I know that late night at a Republican county convention often leaves establishment Republicans shaking their heads about the crazies (they want the votes but they just want them to shut up). Dem conventions can have a similar dynamic, but their platforms usually wind up as a wish list of stuff they couldn’t get, even when Dems control the state legislature. The Iowa Republicans though – they’ve gone from having a moderate wing and a conservative wing to having a conservative wing and a crazy wing.

  • DaveL

    The Department of Agriculture? What did they do?

    If I’m not mistaken, “food stamps” programs fall under their purview. Which are, of course, a form of agricultural subsidy in their own way, but one that pays farmers to feed poor people, as opposed to one that pays farmers not to plant corn.

  • jakc

    plus, the USDA is headed up by Tom Vilsack . . . well-known to Iowa Republicans as a Democrat who beats Republicans AND whose wife (Christie) is now running against Steve King. So yeah – having a Department of Agriculture leads to bad, bad things.

  • @#5 Holytape “Strangely enough if you try to cut and paste from that document, it becomes a letter salad.

    The web page itself is buried in some very creative Javascript to prevent copying (which is weird since you can download it from Scribd as a pdf or even a .txt file – you just have to jump through some hoops.)

  • R Johnston

    @#36

    Not that creative, and not the result of scripting. It’s just a special font that displays characters as other characters to create a basic substitution cipher. And yeah, it’s kind of pointless given the ability to download documents.