Of course, that's only a hypothesis and open to challenge. But, let me try to make the case.
A few weeks ago, Representative Alan Grayson, in addressing the Florida Democratic Convention, suggested that Democrats rename their party the Conscience Party on account of Democrats having a conscience and being conscious of other people's experiences and needs. It's that latter component that I think is critical. Being aware of how other people feel and being willing to walk in their shoes, so to speak, is even more important than knowing right from wrong and then doing the right thing.
Alan Grayson was right on point, and humorous besides.
So, in the interest of bi-partisanship, Grayson also had a suggested name change for the Republican Party--that, in the interest of accuracy, it should become the Selfish Party.
Perhaps he's just been reading too much history and, along with that infamous "nattering nabobs of negativism," which he recently resurrected, Grayson was reminded that accusations of selfishness were a constant theme during the "Me Generation," the favorite appellation for anyone who disagreed with Republicans. Indeed, George Herbert Walker Bush sort of made it official by challenging the whole nation to dedicate itself to the service of others with his oft-repeated "thousand points of light" reference. Perhaps it seemed only fair to return the favor and, à la Priscilla Mullins' question to John Alden, tell them to speak for themselves.
But here I have to disagree. The Selfish Party doesn't quite fit today's conservative Republicans. That's because, when closely considered, it seems obvious that there are actually two kinds of selfishness. On the one hand, there's self-direction, of which Democrats can rightly be accused--i.e. Democrats define being independent as doing their own thing, which they've consciously considered as to its possible effects. (This is what Barack Obama means when he says that he prefers to think before he acts). On the other hand, there's self-centeredness. This, I would argue, is the characteristic Republicans possess in spades. That it often goes unnoticed, even by Democrats, is likely a consequence of the fact that these same Republicans are also other-directed.
Self-centered and other-directed seems like a contradiction, unless other-directed is understood to mean "directed by others," rather than aiming to "do unto others" per the suggestion of the golden rule. Indeed, as it turns out, being both self-centered and other-directed, is a prescription for doing nothing at all. That's obviously because whatever directions others provide, they need not be followed, especially if self-interest is not satisfied--i.e. the self-centered not only retain the option to resist direction, but to stop doing anything at all.
If you're having a hard time imagining a self-centered object that's directed from outside, think of a top that's set spinning on its center by an external force and continues spinning. And, since as it spins, the only other option is to stop, it eventually does. Which is why Republicans are tops. Tops stop. What a coincidence that the same four letters make up the subject and the verb.
Anyway, a rather wide-spread perception of Republicans doing nothing but resisting is what's led to them being dubbed the Party of 'No.' And, perhaps comparing some of our fellow citizens to insensitive objects that are easy to manipulate (Republicans are tops), seems uncalled for. But, if one carries the analogy just a little further, "insensitive" and "easy to manipulate" could well account for the oft observed conundrum that our Republican citizens routinely seem to vote against their own best interests. It could be that being insensitive, albeit self-centered, is a consequence of an inability to know the self and identify what one's best interests actually are. If so, this lack of self-knowledge could also account for their apparent inability to relate to the needs and interests of other people.
How can you know others, if you don't know yourself? Who knew that Socrates' advice might be impossible for some people to follow?
So, which moniker is better, the Tops Party or the Stop Party?