GOP isn't a person. It's a loose confederacy of people. For small government freedom-loving Republicans, go to e.g. parts of Texas.

Utah is a religious conservative. That's an entirely different sort of person. It's a demographic which, in many ways, would align better with Democrats, if not for a few wings of the DNC such as:

* Dawkins-toting militant atheist wing

* Pro-choice feminist wing

That's a big part of why Mitt Romney so often sides with Democrats on key votes, and takes so much flack from other parts of the GOP. He was also governor of Massachusetts, which is about as blue as you get. It take a special kind of Republican to win there.

I don't agree with a lot of what Utah Republicans stand for, but I don't see much hypocrisy there. It's pretty consistent:

* Against: Porn, anti-abortion, homosexuality, drinking, smoking, drugs

* For: Helping poor people (although with a complex split of private charity, church, and government), good education, clean strong neighborhoods, community, families, churches

COVID19 went a bit wonky, but with a few exceptions like that, it's mostly straight-line honest Mormon views.

Curiously, pre-Romney, who seems among the least corrupt politicians in government, Utah was represented by Orrin Hatch, who seemed to be among the most corrupt of the senators at the time.

I live in Cedar City. Down here everybody hates Mitt. Few for the right reasons (like his 47% comments about the middle class/low class), most because this is Trump country and he's not one of "them".

Church has been out of session a long time so a lot of the Mormons (I'm exmo btw) I guess flocked to QAnon as a replacement for religion during the pandemic?

Somebody's grandpa was checking me out at the register at a small grocer and said "did you see it" all excitedly about the Trump parades going around town. Not like I could miss them circling the entire city for two weeks straight - that being just the first day of it.

There's some romney conservatives I'm sure in Utah, but there's so many Trump ones now too that I don't even think Mitt will win the primary in 2026.

If he really was bi-partisan though why not support ending the filibuster? I mean if he wants to deal with democrats and be a cross-the-aisle kind of politician he kind of needs to offer an olive leaf. Him and Murkowski could do a lot together as conservatives with a new plan to keep the party conservative but still reach across for some social progress.

Like the stimulus plan and ending the filibuster would give him big rapport with a lot of senate democrats who'd be more willing to co-sponsor bills with him. That's how we could fix Washington, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

They're happy to regulate people, just not businesses.

They're happy to regulate businesses that compete with businesses that contribute to their campaign spending.

Everyone wants whatever type of government to push the issues they care about. Dems want small government when it comes to marijuana legalization, but also the Federal government should set education curriculum across the entire country or enforce country wide mask mandates. GOP wants states to be able to ban abortions and teach creationism, but chafes at the idea that states could legalize marijuana unilaterally.

It's politics, everyone is a hypocrite.

I'm not sure this statement is correct.

"Dems want small government when it comes to marijuana legalization..."

This isn't really true. The legalization involves local and state regulation and taxes. Sure, the law is more lenient in that one can legally sell and buy the product, but it comes with substantially more regulation (you now need a department to do inspections audits etc).

"chafes at the idea that states could legalize marijuana unilaterally"

Technically they can't legalize it. They can do so at the state level, but it can still be illegal at the federal level. The thing is, the feds don't have the resources to enforce all the laws they make.

I do agree that most political parties and figures can be hypocritical.

As a Democrat I want big government when it comes to marijuana. Why shouldn’t we have the FDA test cannabis products for impurities, set labeling standards, check that facilities that process it are safe, and that labor laws are abided?

What does this have to do with Dems? They don't go around advertising themselves as "small government", so they're irrelevant to the discussion.

I think it depends on which topics one holds most dear.

If you are in the minority on an issue, you may feel something is overbearing but the other side may feel it's "reasonable". For example, if one isn't a gun owner, then they aren't something one has to know and deal with. So one may feel that more regulation is not infringing on rights or freedoms.

It doesn't have anything to do with which topics one holds dear. Small governments would not tell you you can't smoke weed, or buy alcohol at certain places or certain times of day, or cities can't create their own municipal fiber ISPs, or gay people can't get married, or women can't get abortions, or put under god in the national anthem and currency

The parent comment that I was replying to was stating that one party is known for small government, but isn't. I'm just saying they might appear to be small government depending on the person's views and in comparison to the other party. Neither party is advocating in good faith for a true minarchy.