The Two Core Beliefs of the Republican Party

Eric Zuesse

1: One core Republican belief is spread by religious fundamentalists, and it’s a conviction to do war against others by outpopulating them — reproducing more than the other humans do. Part of this is their campaign for fertilized human eggs (the one-celled zygotes of homo sapiens) to become legally declared to be beings who have the same Constitutional protections that their sentient mothers do — beings who have thoughts, emotions, and preferences; pain, pleasure, sorrow, and joy; and thus rights: beings who have life in the more than mere vegetable-biological sense. Actually ignoring the entire issue of consciousness (or soul), essentially ignorant of the spiritual realm, they focus only on the flesh: that fertilized egg is as important to them as the woman herself is. They want all of their own eggs or sperms to become additional fundamentalists; and, if the mother gets hurt in the process, or if the family cannot afford an additional child, or if the couple aren’t fit to be decent parents, or if sex was forced upon the wife, or if there’s a genetic defect that might be passed on to a child, or if there’s misery created in some other way, then that’s just unfortunate, but the cause (Christianity’s version of Islamic jihad — the defeat of other  religions, and also of non-religion) must be served, because God (instead of “We, the People”) is sovereign  here, and it’s ‘our’ God, and we are ‘his People,’ and we are fighting for Him against the non-believers. Also, and especially: there must be no birth-control, because that would especially reduce the numbers of new members of fundamentalist (or anti-scientific) families. The woman’s mere wishes are far less important than are the needs of God: victory for God’s People. Genesis 1:22 said “Be fruitful and multiply.” Genesis 1:28 said specifically to humans: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” This core Republican belief can be called “forced population.” It’s reproduction as God’s warfare to “subdue” everyone and everything else. “Subdue” everyone and everything else, so as to serve their own particular “God.” Increase the size of God’s Army. Reproduce to the max.

2: The other core belief of the Republican Party is that wealth trickles down from employers, instead of percolating up from employees and from consumers-in-general (i.e., from the given firm’s customers). This belief will here be described by one of its most profound opponents, a man who understood, to the core of his being, what it is, and how dangerous it is. Here, then, is one of the first Republicans, Abraham Lincoln, during the Republican Party’s brief introductory stage, when it was America’s progressive Party — before he himself became shot by a conservative, and his Party quickly then became taken over by America’s aristocracy (culminating first with William McKinley, and then with Richard Nixon — and especially with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which acknowledges that the Republican Party is now 100% the anti-Lincoln party). America’s greatest prophet, Lincoln, states here why he rejected the Republican Party that was destined tragically to come after his assassination. This implicit condemnation of today’s Republican Party is the end portion of President Lincoln’s Annual Message to Congress, 3 Dec. 1861, from v. 5 of the 1953 The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, published by The Abraham Lincoln Association — and every school-child should be taught it, and have its profound insights expained to them, so that they can understand what it means in our own time (but Republicans would not want such teaching); so, here it is:


In my present position, I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.

It is not needed, nor fitting here, that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connexions, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connexion with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers, or what we call slaves. And further it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fixed in that condition for life.

Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others, nor have others working for them. In most of the southern States, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families — wives, sons, and daughters — work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital — that is, they labor with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again: as has already been said, there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all — gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.

From the first taking of our national census to the last are seventy years; and we find our population at the end of the period eight times as great as it was at the beginning. The increase of those other things which men deem desirable has been even greater. We thus have at one view, what the popular principle applied to government, through the machinery of the States and the Union, has produced in a given time; and also what, if firmly maintained, it promises for the future. There are already among us those, who, if the Union be preserved, will live to see it contain two hundred and fifty millions. The struggle of today, is not altogether for today — it is for a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence, all the more firm and earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolved upon us.


That’s what Lincoln said, on 3 Dec. 1861. Today, the most prominent representative of Lincoln’s (today) anti-Republican-Party viewpoint, is the independent Democrat, Bernie Sanders. However, no one can express this viewpoint better than Lincoln himself did, even though Lincoln headed the Republican Party at its start, which is when he attacked what subsequently became the core of the Republican Party itself.

This second core principle of the Republican Party, which Lincoln condemned, has since come to permeate the entire world’s aristocracy. For example, as the great economic commentator who goes by the pseudonym of “Yves Smith” noted recently in regards to Greece, “Eurozone policies, particularly in the post-crisis era, are about squeezing labor.” (She has always documented that both Obama and the Clintons are also supporters of that. However, they’re not public about being so; they instead claim not to be; they can’t espouse it and win the Democratic nomination.) Lincoln would be mortified, if he weren’t already dead. “Capital” has won, worldwide. Or, as one of the world’s richest people, Warren Buffett, has said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” He was a Democrat, and so was expressing opposition to this reality; but, to Republicans, there’s nothing wrong with the reality at all, if they even acknowledge that it exists (which Republican masses tend to deny — calling it “Marxism,” which is also false).

That core belief of today’s Republican Party — support of the aristocracy against the public — can be called “conservatism”; and, so, the Republican Party can therefore be characterized as pressing both for “forced population,” and for “conservatism.”

Those are the Republican Party’s two core beliefs. A vote for a Republican is a vote for both of those beliefs, because Republican voters won’t elect any candidate who opposes both beliefs: the needs of both women, and the public in general, must be crushed. The desires of both men, and the aristocracy, must instead be served.

That’s the Republican Party — its two core beliefs.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Randy Ward

    Obvious hit piece is obvious. You are on crack.

    • Brockland

      Is the author factually accurate?

      Otherwise, not much of a rebuttal here.

  • diogenes

    OK, now let’s have something similar on the Democratic Party. Because otherwise it appears that your purpose is to continue turning the crank of the “Two Party” hoax, whereas any thinking observant adult over 35 has seen enough to understand that both parties, together, serve the same oligarchy and waste our time and energy arguing about which pile of s**t stinks worse. They both stink horrible. It’s time to walk away.

    But since we know you’re an even-handed objective commenter and will shortly be posting a similar critique of the “Other” (ho ho ho fooled you) “Party,” why don’t you start by explaining how Bernard Baruch and Rothschild in-law Paul Warburg funded Woodrow Wilson’s campaign so that Wilson could pass the Federal Reserve Act, which Warburg was instrumental in creating. Or maybe you could start with FDR and Pearl Harbor. Or maybe the Tonkin Gulf “incident”. Or how bout a list of the “promises” Obama has betrayed and the “Bush” policies he has continued and intensified? Or how bout how Clinton passed the financial deregulations that set up the crash and plutocracy bailouts?

    OK? We’re waiting.

    • cettel

      That’s like an article about Hitler being attacked because Stalin was so bad. In other words: It’s irrelevant. I don’t speculate; so, there are lots of things I can’t write about even though lots of people write about them (though they shouldn’t, either). Your response is irrelevant to my article, anyway; so, I shouldn’t even be replying to it.

      • kimyo

        is it possible than clinton/obama destroyed freedom/democracy MORE than bush/reagan?

        it’s hard to gauge, but it’s pretty fucking close.

        • cettel

          “kimyo”, I would only point out, again, the irrelevancy of your comment to my article. My article isn’t about that. The truthfulness of my article isn’t in any way dependent upon the answer to the question you are asking. The basic sign of an unintelligent person is the raising of irrelevancies as ‘objections.’

          However, specifically in reference to the question that you have raised: I have written repeatedly that at the top level, the Presidential level, the two political Parties are quite similar, and that they are so because both are controlled by different factions of the same aristocracy, which is the American aristocracy; and I have also repeatedly stated that whereas those two factions have some authentic disagreements, they are united in their war against not only the American public but also foreign publics, and, indeed, against any foreign aristocracies that refuse to submit themselves to control by the U.S. aristocracy.

          That briefly describes how the American empire works. But my article here isn’t about that.

          • diogenes

            The question is, what purposes are served by striking up the same old tune and marching around the same old block one more time. Since as you say you understand that both parties are owned and operated by the same oligarchy and pursue fundamentally the same policies, why get involved in a superfluous re-hash of one party’s, or the other’s, s**t-pile. Isn’t it obvious that we need to step back from BOTH parties and move forward along another line? And isn’t it obvious that your considerable energies would be better devoted to that than to one more article slagging Republicans OR Democrats per se?

          • kimyo

            zuesse’s ‘nugget’ of ‘intellectual wisdom’: the pinos, being ever so slightly less corrupt than the conservatives, deserve your vote. even though they will not stop killing innocent children with drones/close guantanamo. even though they are just as subservient to jpm/gs/monsanto as the conservatives.

            voting is a complete farce.

            Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

            which of us is the intellectual? which is the moron?

            no president has done more for monsanto than obama. period. no president has destroyed the earth more than obama. in second place? clinton certainly is a contender. reporting on a tiny facet of the political spectrum is perhaps just about as useful as giving us the play by play on a wwe match.

    • Brockland

      The oligarchy is hardly a monolith. They may have a few common interests, but differ on motivations and ways of achieving those goals.

      When the GOP was in the White House overseeing the COG (Continuity of Government) preparations leading up to 911, Democratic representatives were left out.

      So, there are differences. Siblicide in eagles is mostly a myth, but this is the politics of “The Last Man Standing”.

      • Here is my small contribution with a small sampling from my personal files!

        US history – “How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981 (Jan.1998)

        “Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter.

        Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979

        In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors).

        In a 1997 interview for CNN’s Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration’s proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.

        General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

        “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

        General Wesley Clark Asked About 7 Country War Plan

        FDNY 9/11 Survivor Witness and Whistleblower: Speaks on WTC 7 May 25, 2014

        Rudy Dent – Vietnam War veteran, of four year member of the NYPD and thirty-two year FDNY firefighter. As a firefighter on 9/11, he was at Ground Zero and was there when Building 7 came down. In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall, he relives his experience that day, recounting how he believes the buildings in New York were brought down in controlled demolitions.

      • diogenes

        The American oligarchy comprises roughly 10,000 families, the 0.01% who own about 13% of America, with their holdings concentrated in the core financial, industrial, mercantile and commercial institutions. The vast bulk of this wealth is hereditary, most of it dates from the 19th century and some from before the Civil War. The Roosevelts date from before 1700. This oligarchy seized control of our country’s federal government in the 1890s and has been consolidating its control ever since. If that’s not a “monolith” what is? Get real. Stop making excuses for what is inexcusable.

        • Brockland

          Ten thousand families, but you only need two squabbling patriarchs (or matriarchs) to start factionalization. (That’s probably not a word…). There’s no saying, after all, that there has to be ten thousand families at the top, all getting along famously without a rivalrous, fatricidal bone in their richly-fed bodies. Why not five thousand, losers to join the unwashed masses in humiliation?

          Its not making excuses, its observing history. The old-style monarchies were all into preservation of the Divine Right of Kings and family unity. That didn’t stop them from conspiracies against the ruling house and against each other and disagreeing as to the ratio of stick to carrot for the peasants. What appeared to be a monolith, was little more than a cowan’s cairn.

          There’s only so much room atop a shrinking top. As the serpent nibbles past its tail to the flanks of the 1% of the 1%, things will get interesting. The most successful instigators of change, were usually not peasants but members of the bourgeosie fearful of being taken down another notch.

  • A.T.

    Oh, OK. So the Planned Parenthood video hoax was more than just the warfare state shaking down the welfare state for spare change then.

    Always wondered why pro-lifer types were otherwise so often death on ex-utero human life.

  • The Social Cost of Capitalism — Paul Craig Roberts –
    It appears to me that whereas a conservative is using “capitalism” in unflattering terms; addressing the matter of externality costs, above, Bernie Sanders has been largely mute on the subject. His recent best, in 2009, was this:

    “Capitalism does a number of things very well: it helps create an entrepreneurial spirit, it gets people motivated to come up with new ideas and that’s a good thing. But on the other hand, especially since the Reagan era, what we have seen in this country is an unfettered type of cowboy capitalism, and the result of that has been, that the people on top have made out like bandits and many of them are bandits.”

    The Lincoln citation is quite eye-popping. The gist of this article, however, seems to exist within a politically and economically decontextualized bubble. The Democrats, since Carter went neoliberal, have occupied the position of “the more effective evil…”

    The Republican’s second core belief is shared by the Democrat(ic) parties own aristocracy and political class of lackeys to the oligarchy.

    Their first, where warfare is concerned, suits the Democrats just fine…

  • February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order — Paul Craig Roberts

    Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing.

  • January 4, 2015 How America Was Lost: from 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State

    “Americans need to understand that they have lost their country. The rest of the world needs to recognize that Washington is not merely the most complete police state since Stalinism, but also a threat to the entire world.

  • Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, ‘The War Party’

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today’s world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people’s voice be heard?

  • Army of Addicts

    So, the Republicans and the religious fundamentalists have different reasons for wanting to preserve the fertilized egg. The one in order to outnumber their enemies, and the Fundies in order to control what people think while receiving a will deserved pat on the back by God himself.

    • diogenes

      Yes, let’s fight about this! It will distract us for another four years while the predators continue to pillage America and destroy American democracy.

      • Army of Addicts

        Rather, let’s open peoples’s eyes to the power of religion, Christianity in this case, exposing the deception, there by changing votes.

        • diogenes

          The first thing Jesus did when he got to Jerusalem during Holy Week was to scourge the moneylenders out of the Temple. It’s the only time in the Gospels when he takes such action, and it’s the first action he takes. Let’s take this Bible lesson to heart and whip (‘scourge”) out of our democratic temple, America, all the bankers and other financial parasites who have corrupted “both” so-called political parties and all the rest of our government and economy. This alone will so much improve conditions in our country that the abortion rate will drop like a rock — among scores of positive consequences.

          • Army of Addicts

            You can use a scourge of cords to drive people like cattle but it doesn’t say that he actually scourged anyone directly.
            Your proposal would probably start a war.