View Full Version : NYT editorial: Republican Party
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/should-republicans-just-focus-on-white-voters/?hp
"You can’t establish long-lasting majority coalitions in America. Part of this is because parties adapt. You can already begin to see this starting with the G.O.P. on marriage equality, which will probably have a pro-gay marriage nominee at some point in the mid-2020s and might have a pro-civil unions nominee in 2016. The simple truth is that “coalitions of everyone” inevitably fall apart, quickly. You can see the reasons why in the immigration debate itself, where, even if we’re only being reluctantly honest, the interests of some core Democratic and Republican coalition groups are at loggerheads with one another (Hispanics vs. working class whites and blacks; upscale whites vs. downscale whites)."
The first line in this quote is good news to me. In a highly pluralistic country, we will always struggle for all voices to be hear. I long for a more centrist R party. The extremist stances I am hearing are damaging to the country, and, as a lifelong D, I want some robust competition for the middle! As someone with immigrants from three nations in my immediate family (Egypt, Guatemala, & Mexico), as well as people of color, Muslims, and Queers in my immediate family, I want a national dialogue about the challenges facing all of us as the profile of the country is changing.
I found this editorial to be very compelling. The data I have read in the long past stated that the more major parties there are in competition, the higher is voter turnout. It would rock of we had five parties in national competition, as did the country when Lincoln was elected. I'd love to hear your views on this opinion article & on the next century of politics in the US.
iris lilies
7-4-13, 2:28pm
... The extremist stances I am hearing are damaging to the country...
I would like to hear 3 extremist stances that you ascribe to the Republican Party and that you think are damaging. I say this as a point of discussion.
Three of us--DH, our Republican friend, and myself--often do not agree on a position about a specific issue. Our friend talks about "the base" and I'm not even sure I'm there 50% of the time. I hear Tea Partiers portrayed as nutjob fringies and yet I LIKE what I consider to be the basic Tea Party stance of small fed government. I read varying views on issues in The National Review which most reasonable people consider a conservative publication.
Given all of these things, I seem to be more confused about what the monolithic Republic point of view really is, more so than you are. Please enlighten me so I can find my hommies (which I suspect are the Tea Partiers.)
edited to add: I read 1/2 of of the article and skimmed the rest. It's about race. Race and politics. Race and which party gets which race vote. It touches on a couple of ideological issues.
The idea of 5 national parties is a guarantee that the guy in the White House is there due to a small percentage of the country's will. While theoretically I like the idea of multiple ideologies expressed in multiple parties, I have a hard time wrapping my head around those minority propelled guys in office. I know that other countries do it and they haven't died out--yet.
If you watch Fox News, there are three stances that I hear a fair amount that give me pause:
1. women should not have medical reproductive rights/freedoms (and also should not be breadwinners);
2. LGBT people should not have equal protection before the law (DOMA etc);
3. erosion of civil liberties/rights via homeland security, patriot act, etc should continue (perhaps this goes along with issues such as how the various wars on terror should continue as well -- military industrial complex stuff);
4. there are also issues around welfare that i take issue with in the current party -- the processes of doing away with welfare altogether, including doing away with unemployment benefits, disability benefits, social security, and medicaid/care (in addition to obamacare, etc);
5. religious right/theocon stuff that seems to have snuck in.
NZ is a system where we have multiple parties. These parties often form little coalition blocks, which shift depending upon what is what. There are basically two big parties (labor and national) with some larger smaller groups (green being the largest of these). But, there are a lot of little parties as well which do a fair amount of work.
It was explained to me that, basically, at any given time these smaller parties band together or band together with larger parties to put forth what they want. A group of smaller parties can get together and put support behind a certain person for prime minister, and effectively "beat" the larger parties if all of those parties get enough support. Usually, though, you end up with a labor or national PM. Greens might be able to get a PM in over the next few years as they are really gaining momentum here (being a good mix between labor and national in terms of politics, with an ecological/sustainability bent). The greens are hoping on rallying the smaller parties behind them (Which is what labor did early on to get it's standing against national), so that they can have more power an become a viable 3rd party against these two larger parties.
Anyway, it's a bit of a difficult system, but I"m really surprised that national won again this last election. Considering the platforms and people's complaints about national's plan to sell NZ assets on an open (international) market in order to earn income for the country (to decrease deficit/debt), I was surprised. But, they have been the leading party for a while now. They are making the place "more american" according to a lot of folks -- letting go of a lot of the (really good and working) labor party policies that have done well for the country.
What is curious to me, though, is that those policies -- for example, basically a voucher-system for schooling which has made schools quite competitive and made NZ the 4th best education system in the world is really a policy that republicans (in the US) seem to get behind, but democrats haven't. Labor tends to be more analogous to dems, though. The National are now moving toward the system that the US is using now -- the system of funding based on school performance/testing, which seems to be where the Dems want to stay.
So, what you think of as being a "liberal" policy in the US might be taken up by a "conservative" group here, and vice-versa.
It's hard to say which group is conservative, which group is liberal, etc. In truth, all are liberals on a spectrum (even in the US), so I suppose it does really make sense.
For me, I find that reading the platforms is interesting. Greens and Labor were well against asset sales and very pro-environment this last time, as well as wanted to decrease certain taxes (GST on fruits and veg, for example), and wanting to change some tariff laws so that we could get imported goods more affordably. Also, either a subsidizing process OR an export thing so that NZ food would cost less in NZ (something like what France does). I think that was green.
National mostly focused on the loss of income to the state, wanting to balance the budget, etc -- all of which are great concepts - and planned to do it via asset sales and also building on particular industries (tourism, film). Not bad ideas, but the asset sales give me pause.
But then, there's a whole deal here about free market services (ie, power, telecommunications, etc). It certainly hasn't driven prices down as expected, and in fact, prices are well up and there's an issue of "energy poverty" here that needs to be solved. So, they're trying to figure that out, too. Also, asset sales haven't happened yet, because parliament still has to agree to it, and it's largely labor/greens (plus small groups). And, there have been massive protests against it -- and they do tend to listen to the protests here.
Anyway, that's just some rambling observations. I'm still learning how the system works.
Also, our city council is Green. I thought that was cool.
IL, for me the extreme stances that I think are damaging to the country, and frankly, to the party, are these, all taken from the 2012 national platform, from 3 categories:
Balanced budget amendment
Constituional amendment requiring super-majority for tax increases
Enforce Defense of Marriage Act
Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman
Affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed
Support a human life amendment to the Constitution
Endorse legislation to make clear that Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to unborn children
Support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life
Oppose federal funding of embryonic stem sell research
Support state laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods, parental consent, and abortion clinic regulation
What do you see as the extremes of the GOP?
iris lilies
7-4-13, 9:56pm
IL, for me the extreme stances that I think are damaging to the country, and frankly, to the party, are these, all taken from the 2012 national platform, from 3 categories:
Balanced budget amendment
Constituional amendment requiring super-majority for tax increases
...
Yep, the 2012 GOP platform is representative of Republican ideas, more so than your interpretation of what you hear on Fox news. So I will accept that. Starting with the first one:
A balanced budget is what I want for this country. That doesn't seem "extreme" to me, but that's really your label to toss out. The idea that our country not spend more than it has is mainstream.
The GOP's expressed desire to have an amendment to control that is pie in the sky. They won't get the amendment, it is commonly voted on. You do know that your buddy in the White House voted for that same thing PAYGO* when he was a U.S. Senator, right? It's popular stagecraft by the non-ruling party. But even if the thing DID go through, it's not a panacea, I've read that there would be too many ways to get around it as I know the idiots in Congress would do.
So balance the budget, sounds good to me.
more later
*edited to say: sorry, then Senator Obama probably didn't vote for an amendment but he made lots of noises as a Senator about wanting a balanced budget
IL, for me the extreme stances that I think are damaging to the country, and frankly, to the party, are these, all taken from the 2012 national platform, from 3 categories:
Balanced budget amendment
Constituional amendment requiring super-majority for tax increases
I think a balanced budget amendment is a wonderful idea, although admittedly a pipe dream. I'm truly concerned about the burden we're putting onto our children and grandchildren by forcing them to pay for our current wants. As for the super-majority for tax increases, in the absence of a fair tax structure where everyone has a little skin in the game, we should make it hard for politicians to buy votes through increases to target demographics.
Enforce Defense of Marriage Act
Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman
While I can admire at least one party attempting to enforce a federal law (what is a law if it's not enforced?), I believe the federal government overstepped it's boundaries with DOMA, one of President Clinton's signature landmarks.
Affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed
Support a human life amendment to the Constitution
Endorse legislation to make clear that Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to unborn children
Support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life
Oppose federal funding of embryonic stem sell research
Support state laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods, parental consent, and abortion clinic regulation
Many people, myself included, are terribly saddened by abortion. I'm in favor of anything we can do to remind folks that we terminate life at various stages of development with impunity, and have developed a culture wherein it is taboo to even acknowledge the victims. One of the recognized responsibilities of our government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I can't agree that the one party attempting to represent the one minority liberals refuse to acknowledge would be considered extreme. I guess that's just the nature of identity politics.
Edited to add:
Since the thread is designed as a critique of the Republican Party, let me say that my only problem with the GOP is that the old guard which controls the party are now trying their hand at Democrat lite. I'd like to see the Tea Party members join with the Libertarians, drawing traditional Democrats and Republicans away from their ancestral homes and have the resultant party concentrate on Constitutional governance and emphasizing personal responsibility. Until then, I'll stick with the Repubs as the lesser of two evils.
I also think a balanced budget is a worthy goal. An amendment to the Constitution is extreme.
And, I too am saddened by abortion. It represents failure on many possible levels: birth control education, access to affordable health care as well as to affordable, non-toxic & easy to use contraceptives. A woman's sense of self that is strong enough to take care of her reproductive options, and making pregnancy a choice.
Criminalizing abortion does nothing to address either making chosen pregnancies more likely, or abortions less likely, and is an extremist approach doomed to fail. Definitely a failure of identity politics.
I am in favor of more parties, of all configurations! Thanks for your thoughts.
Here's the thing about the Tea Party. It was a libertarian movement. It got co-opted into the GOP, and when it did (and became affiliated with religious right, etc), the libertarians left the party.
That being said, if the libertarian leaning GOP folk would leave the GOP for libertarianism rather than asserting that libertarians are "nutters" (ie, my GOP family members love tea party, but libertarianism is "crazy." And they aren't the only ones who have asserted it to me -- without ever acknowledging the tea-party's libertarian origins or ideologies), then you'd definitely have something.
Though in my mind, I'd rather have the religious right and neocons pushed out, and the original conservatives and libertarians back in.
I also think a balanced budget is a worthy goal. An amendment to the Constitution is extreme.
Forty Nine of our Fifty states require balanced budgets, the vast majority through their constitutions with the remaining few through statute. Are they extreme?
i think a balanced budget is great, too. I think clinton's administration managed it. :)
Forty Nine of our Fifty states require balanced budgets, the vast majority through their constitutions with the remaining few through statute. Are they extreme?
Tis a bit more complex.
"Only two states — not 49, as Cornyn says — have amended their constitutions to require balanced budgets. Counting amendments plus provisions tucked into original constitutions, however, 45 states have balanced-budget stipulations, according to NCSL's count. NASBO considers 46 states to have constitutional or statutory balanced-budget requirements."
(NASBO is the National Association of State Budget Officers.)
~ http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/dec/25/john-cornyn/sen-john-cornyn-says-49-states-have-balanced-budge/
There are three general kinds of state balanced budget requirements:
The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).
The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico).
~http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/budget/state-balanced-budget-requirements.aspx
Washington State:
"The state constitution, contrary to popular belief, doesn't require a balanced budget. Neither does state law. A section in the state Budget and Accounting Act says the governor must propose a balanced budget, but it doesn't say the Legislature or governor must approve one."
"It's long been accepted gospel by many here: The state must balance its budget and can't borrow money to cover shortfalls like the one lawmakers now face.
"My brochure for my race said that unlike the federal government we have to balance our budget," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam. "I seriously believed that."
In fact, it's a myth.
There's no legal barrier that prevents the state from going into deficit spending, according to legislative staff members and the governor's budget office."
~http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2008480910_budget08m.html
The role of the states is quite different that the role of the Feds. Each state has different poilicies & practices.
Yes, it's extreme to require a Constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.
If you watch Fox News, there are three stances that I hear a fair amount that give me pause:
1. women should not have medical reproductive rights/freedoms (and also should not be breadwinners);
2. LGBT people should not have equal protection before the law (DOMA etc);
3. erosion of civil liberties/rights via homeland security, patriot act, etc should continue (perhaps this goes along with issues such as how the various wars on terror should continue as well -- military industrial complex stuff);
4. there are also issues around welfare that i take issue with in the current party -- the processes of doing away with welfare altogether, including doing away with unemployment benefits, disability benefits, social security, and medicaid/care (in addition to obamacare, etc);
5. religious right/theocon stuff that seems to have snuck in.#3 isn't really a valid complaint. The world has changed, and implementing civil liberties in 2013 the way that would have worked in 1963 would be just-plain-stupid. The Republican approach to civil liberties is a responsible accommodation to the realities of today.
#1 and #2 are both valid, but really they're wrapped up in #5: The Republican Party presumes to impose personal values shared by many of their own members onto secular society itself in a manner that deprives those who hold to personal values different from those shared by many Republicans from living their own lives in accordance with their own values, especially with regard to their own bodies, their own families, and their own worship.
#4 is also valid: The Republican Party cares more about safeguarding the comfort and luxury of upper-middle class and rich people than about assuring the basic needs of lower-middle class and poor people. The party pays lip-service to acknowledgement of basic decency regarding those less fortunate, but then elevates low taxes over that basic decency.
So really there are only those two things - not three stances as you asserted, nor five as you listed - and they can be boiled down to two labels of stances that the Republican Party promotes and Democrats generally resent: Support for personal avarice and the ability to capitalize on modes of exploitation, and infliction of GOP-dictated quasi-religious values. The Democratic Party promotes two stances that many Republicans resent: Socially-conscious administration of the shared economy (at their personal financial expense, of course), and personal agency with regard to matters of values.
flowerseverywhere
7-5-13, 8:38am
It amazes me that so much time and money is being spent on abortion and domestic partnership. Crumbling infrastructure, raising educational standards and achievements, dealing with immigration, on time and balanced budgets, why I can think of dozens of issues I think we all would like to see adressed on the local, state and federal levels. Especially spending. Sometimes I feel like shouting to all our politicians "get it together, grow up and do what you were elected to do."
One problem the republicans have is every time someone opens their mouth and inserts their foot it is picked up nationally by the press and broadcast over and over. The crazy statements of women can will not to get pregnant when raped, if you get pregnant after a rape god intended it and death panels with obamacare are just a few of the statements that have been plastered all over the news. Even if the statements were misunderstood, there they are being replayed and you can bet we wil see these sound bites during the next election. It really gives the republicans less credibility even if they don't stand for the majority party line
rodeosweetheart
7-5-13, 8:45am
The Republican Party presumes to impose personal values shared by many of their own members onto secular society itself in a manner that deprives those who hold to personal values different from those shared by many Republicans from living their own lives in accordance with their own values, especially with regard to their own bodies, their own families, and their own worship."
I actually find this to be true of the current Democratic administration, not the Republican party. And the current war-mongering by the current Democrat in power is destroying our economy and effectivly precludes any balanced budget. It seems to me the only party with any interest in and hope for revealing the truth about our loss of civil liberties, about what is truly going on with this current administration, is currently the Republican party. But then I voted for Ron Paul in our primary.
I actually find this to be true of the current Democratic administration, not the Republican party.I'm sorry but I cannot agree: There is a fundamental difference that you're overlooking: The Republican Party attempts to force everyone to live their own lives according to the values the Republican Party favors. The Democratic Party attempts to force everyone to let everyone else live their own lives according to the values the person living the life personally subscribes to. As an analogy, the Republican Party's approach is comparable to vegetarians forcing meat-eaters to eat only fruits and vegetables, while the Democratic Party's approach is comparable to vegetarians forcing meat-eaters to let vegetarians be vegetarians, and not treat vegetarians poorly for being vegetarians.
It amazes me that so much time and money is being spent on abortion and domestic partnership. Crumbling infrastructure, raising educational standards and achievements, dealing with immigration, on time and balanced budgets, why I can think of dozens of issues I think we all would like to see adressed on the local, state and federal levels. Especially spending. Sometimes I feel like shouting to all our politicians "get it together, grow up and do what you were elected to do."
Word.
I'm sorry but I cannot agree: There is a fundamental difference that you're overlooking: The Republican Party attempts to force everyone to live their own lives according to the values the Republican Party favors. The Democratic Party attempts to force everyone to let everyone else live their own lives according to the values the person living the life personally subscribes to. As an analogy, the Republican Party's approach is comparable to vegetarians forcing meat-eaters to eat only fruits and vegetables, while the Democratic Party's approach is comparable to vegetarians forcing meat-eaters to let vegetarians be vegetarians, and not treat vegetarians poorly for being vegetarians. 1+
As someone with immigrants from three nations in my immediate family (Egypt, Guatemala, & Mexico), as well as people of color, Muslims, and Queers in my immediate family, I want a national dialogue about the challenges facing all of us as the profile of the country is changing.
We have Muslims, Jews, Queers, Mexicans, Pakistanis, Filipinos, rednecks and a slight majority of somewhat shaken Presbyterian WASPs. That mix coming out of mid-western, farming, Wonderbread-land in just one generation is mind boggling. And redfox, your family and mine are not isolated incidences. That kind of stirring in the melting pot makes change inevitable. You always hear lip service given to diversity being our strong suit, but ultimately it probably is.
The more I learn about debt structuring and the future impact the less concerned I am about the national debt. Right now I'm a lot more concerned with what we are spending money on than I am about the total expenditures. That is ONLY true, however, if we remain in a cycle of perpetual growth. Should our economy ever contract for any significant period of time it will cause very real problems. Since economic cycles are a reality on the global stage a balanced budget should be the goal of any reasonable leader. But we don't need a constitutional amendment, we only need the voters to get off their a$$ and DEMAND it from the people we elect. A clear message of 'balance it or you're out' should go a long way. Combine it with repealing all golden parachutes until someone has served at least two terms and we might see some action.
Abortion will always be a divisive issue, and thank goodness for that. A moral society should protect the rights of all its members and it should grapple with the big philosophical questions. The "right" answer is holy grail. There is no one size fits all for the meaning of life. I'm every bit as thankful for those who would advocate for my future grandchildren as I am for the ones who would grant my daughter the empowerment of choice.
Forty Nine of our Fifty states require balanced budgets, the vast majority through their constitutions with the remaining few through statute. Are they extreme?
And they ALL take money from the Feds to make up the shortfall.
And they ALL take money from the Feds to make up the shortfall.
True, but only about thirty states fail to contribute as much to the federal treasury as they receive in grants from the federal government. The states that are thereby deficit spenders are: Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Florida, Tennessee, Indiana, Utah, Iowa, Missouri, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, Louisiana, Vermont, Maryland, Kentucky, South Carolina, Montana, Maine, South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Alabama, West Virginia, Virginia, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alaska.
The rest of the states actually are indeed balanced budget states, or states that actually altruistically support the other states's needs: Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Nevada, California, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Washington, Georgia, Ohio.
I cannot help but notice that the state I was born in, the states I have in the past and now live in, and even the state I will move to in retirement - every state I'll have lived in during my lifetime - are all in that list of states that are balanced or surplus budget states. I also cannot help but notice that there is a Republican/Democratic bias between these two lists, but it is opposite of what one would expect: Most of the states that are deficit spenders generally support Republicans; most of the states that are surplus budget states generally support Democrats.
And they ALL take money from the Feds to make up the shortfall.
Yes they do. Although it's money the feds have previously taken from the states being redistributed. Some states end up being net takers while others are net givers.
I don't know about 5 parties, but three good strong ones would be great. Right, left and in the middle somewhere. And no, Libertarians aren't in the middle! They are 'somewhere out there'.
My gripe with republicans/right/tea party are as so many have already posted. For all their talk about fiscal responsibility and budget balancing and so forth, see what they have actually spent all their time on.
How many times have they tried to repeal Obamacare? It is the law of the land, and for the provisions that have already gone into effect, people love it! (which, of course is why the republicans are desperate to repeal it)
All across the country they have used their time to suppress the vote (if you can't win on message, cheat, lie and steal to win)
They have spent an enormous amount of time suppressing women's rights (state date rape) And not just abortion but even birth control itself!
They are scrambling to hold back 'the gays', as their gain of rights will, of course, crumble civilization as we know it.
They have taken a policy of slash and burn on ANYTHING Obama/democrats want, including legislation/idea that was theirs in the first place! Even if it (whatever) will benefit their constituents!
They embrace and try to 'out right' the most fringe of their party, signing pledges to lobbyist and abdicating policy to oil companies, gun dealers, and religious fanatics. IN my own state, the republican speaker enshrined, in my Capital dome, the most foul mouthed, nasty hate mongering idiot that ever presented himself on public airwaves. And he did it essentially in the dead of the night because he knew the people of Missouri were outraged by this.
In fact, this seems to be the preferred tactic of the right. Ram through legislation without proper debate, or consensus/vote of the people.
Now, if anyone wants to list some good things they have done, then please, list them. Give us a list of good policy, protection, or advancement of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from these folks.
Yes they do. Although it's money the feds have previously taken from the states being redistributed. Some states end up being net takers while others are net givers.
Ah, the every man for himself policy you so love to advocate! The disbanding of the UNITED States. And the formation of The Various States of North America. Sure, some are rich and some positively third world, but, as long as you live in one of the well off states (for now), who cares about the rest, right? ;)
Unfortunately, fortunes change. All it takes is some devastating flooding, out of control wildfires, a hurricane or tornado or two, and your positive budget dips below that red line.:0!
Ah, the every man for himself policy you so love to advocate! I guess you could say that. I'd phrase it differently, along the lines of independence from external control since all that federal redistribution comes with qualifiers and mandates.
The disbanding of the UNITED States. And the formation of The Various States of North America.
I'm not sure where you get that idea.
Sure, some are rich and some positively third world, but, as long as you live in one of the well off states (for now), who cares about the rest, right? ;)
Some states, like some people, seem to take the path of least resistance. If the federal government is willing to prop them up, it's easier to allow it to happen than to proactively promote independence. I'm not a give a man a fish kinda guy, I'd prefer that everyone learn to fish. I'm weird that way.
I don't know about 5 parties, but three good strong ones would be great. Right, left and in the middle somewhere.Three parties as you've outlined them won't do well: The middle party will be readily able to leech moderates from both extremes, and will be able to form temporary coalitions with the specific extreme party that most closely supports what they wish to do, such that the two extreme parties would rapidly become irrelevant - nothing more than tools of the middle party.
One way three parties would be sustainable would be if the third party was truly unique combination of perspectives, perhaps a socially conservative and fiscally liberal party, akin to what a political party would look like if run by the Sisters of Charity.
And no, Libertarians aren't in the middle! They are 'somewhere out there'.Libertarians are definitely not in the middle. The ones we have today are a bit extreme ("out there") but more generally, they're supposed to for small government (really for small government, not just paying lip-service to small government while advocating for a large military, etc., like the GOP does). Real libertarians would be socially liberal (they'd adhere very closely to a morality that would afford each individual personal agency for the largest realm possible without intersecting a realm of someone else) and would keep spending down to the absolute minimum to assure human decency (so perhaps federally-supported dormitories and soup kitchens, instead of TANF and SNAP, respectively, so the absolutely smallest amount of money can be spent to provide decency-necessitated housing and food). That would be not only a distinct third party, it would be a third party that is not just a half-and-half swap of perspectives, vis a vis the Republicans and Democrats, as my "Sisters of Charity" example above would have been.
The libertarians I see seeking office today aren't like that. They're generally just people who have means to assure their own personal financial security, either through financial resources that they have or have reason to believe they will have, or through their preference for use of brutal force to acquire and hold what they want - and they couldn't care less about anyone else. They don't seem to have any conception of social responsibility or recognize society's obligations with regard to basic human decency, because those things would interfere with their self-focused aims. I don't consider that a sustainable third party because there simply isn't enough room in their libertarian elite for enough members of society to safeguard their chosen world order from being ripped down simply based on its innate unfairness and inequity.
#3 isn't really a valid complaint. The world has changed, and implementing civil liberties in 2013 the way that would have worked in 1963 would be just-plain-stupid. The Republican approach to civil liberties is a responsible accommodation to the realities of today.
I disagree with you about this particular point. I don't believe for a minute that the government is collecting massive amounts of information simply to look for terrorists. It may take a few years, even decades, for it to happen, but one of these days people will start discovering that info gathered in these massive sweep-ups of info is being used for completely other purposes against people.
And if it was truly about defending against the threat of terrorism at home we wouldn't be spying on our allies in much of the EU and Japan.
If defending against civil liberties has truly changed, and isn't just being used as justification by the federal government, now that it was caught spying on its own citizens, then the politicians who support spying on citizens should talk about the need to modify the 4th amendment to suit our current circumstances.
ApatheticNoMore
7-5-13, 3:28pm
It amazes me that so much time and money is being spent on abortion and domestic partnership.
+1 I could see the moral opposition to abortion but I don't think it's actually solvable at present, forcing women to have unwanted kids does nothing good for the kids even if the woman carries to term, at best you can encourage adoption, for which there is actually massive demand (or people wouldn't wait years in the hopes of getting approved to adopt). And as for domestic partnership I really don't care.
I disagree with you about this particular point. I don't believe for a minute that the government is collecting massive amounts of information simply to look for terrorists. It may take a few years, even decades, for it to happen, but one of these days people will start discovering that info gathered in these massive sweep-ups of info is being used for completely other purposes against people.
+1 counterintelpro
And if it was truly about defending against the threat of terrorism at home we wouldn't be spying on our allies in much of the EU and Japan.
That's about economics and dominence. Warfare is ECONOMICS BY OTHER MEANS. Steal trade secrets, spy on economic negotiations. Even so other countries are wising up and I think at root wising for economic reasons (I might like to pretend it was for idealistic reasons like civil liberties but really). They see having all their economic secrets stolen is fatal. So no they won't use American ISPs or software companies in the long run, and they will encrypt.
If defending against civil liberties has truly changed, and isn't just being used as justification by the federal government, now that it was caught spying on its own citizens, then the politicians who support spying on citizens should talk about the need to modify the 4th amendment to suit our current circumstances.
+1 it's not only changed which would be one thing, but they have to keep secret the fact it's changed (or tried to). Incidently this is why Zoebird really is showing she hasn't kept up with American politics (for which I don't blame her, I afterall am such an expert on New Zealand politics :)). It's not a Republican thing - we haven't had that spirit here since 2008, the trashing of civil liberties is fully bipartisan now, and now we have a new group of absolutely terrifying Dem Party Totalitarians. Both parties are extremist and suck. But one can go ahead and believe in them, sell your soul on the cheap.
By the way I'm pretty horrified to hear that New Zealand is selling off their resources :( - like a 3rd world country - we're all 3rd world countries now I guess. Selling off REAL assets, for paper debt and paper promises, in a paper system noone much believes in at this point, though it's still alive.
Once again, I am very appreciative of the varying responses, perspectives, and all around well-considered thinking of our community here.
I have the high hopes of a revived, centrist GOP, at least eventually. The article, as IL pointed out, talks a lot about race, which I see as THE biggest social, and thus public policy, issue of this (admittedly young) century. Apparently, so does the author of the opinion piece, insofar as reviving the GOP is concerned.
How do you want the R party to move forward into the 21st century? How do you think this party can become relevant again?
How do you think this party can become relevant again?Other than a blog entry which validates your own feelings, what makes you think it isn't relevant now?
Other than a blog entry which validates your own feelings, what makes you think it isn't relevant now?
It's performance during the last two Presidential elections, and in the last six years of Congress. I am not impressed with the GOP obfuscation evidenced there.
How is it currently relevant in your perceptive?
It's performance during the last two Presidential elections. How is it currently relevant in your perceptive?
The last two general elections which placed a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Peoples House, and the fact that a majority of states elected Republican Governors during the same period. The last two Presidential elections reflect something entirely different, the cult of personality.
To be really honest, I got so tired of the screaming/yelling/infighting/stupidity of american politics, that I basically stopped paying attention in 2008 -- before moving to NZ. I basically skim headlines, read what I find interesting, and ignore everything else (this is why I qualified: 'if you watch fox news.' -- and I don't. my family does, and reposts stuff on FB.). I also wasn't saying that the Dems are the most excellent (i've always had problems with them, too), but the question was about what you consider the problems of the Repubs are. So I answered that.
Likewise, I am trying to get my head around politics here. I have no idea what is going on. I am getting a basic sense of the history (from reading books), and I'm learning how their system works. I don't fully understand it -- in fact there is a lot more nuance than I can figure. There's also a lot of fighting/mudslinging -- but it's not as bad as it is in the US (imo). It's much more "NPR" like rather than the way fox likes to play things (i'm sure there's an analogous liberal media "news" outlet).
Anyway. . .
The last two general elections which placed a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Peoples House, and the fact that a majority of states elected Republican Governors during the same period. The last two Presidential elections reflect something entirely different, the cult of personality.
That hits the nail on the head.
The last two general elections which placed a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Peoples House, and the fact that a majority of states elected Republican Governors during the same period. The last two Presidential elections reflect something entirely different, the cult of personality.
This reflects the success of a pluralistic system. I am an advocate of a balance of power across the tripartite government we have, though I am disappointed in the appalling leadership in the House majority leader.
There have been divisive eras in Congress, but the stonewalling that has been happening is commented upon by even stalwart R's. The efforts to defeat the President, both in Congressional action & in the polls has made the GOP ineffective, bordering on buffoons.
I don't buy the "cult of personality". The same voters were somehow hypnotized at the top of their ballots, yet managed to shake that off for their Congressional & Gubenatorial sections? Nope.
Again I ask, how does the current GOP seem relevant to you?
I don't buy the "cult of personality". The same voters were somehow hypnotized at the top of their ballots, yet managed to shake that off for their Congressional & Gubenatorial sections? Nope.
That's actually one of the things that makes the cult of personality obvious.
Again I ask, how does the current GOP seem relevant to you?
I just told you.
Since this is your thread, perhaps you'll give us real examples, outside of your displeasure with a perceived enemy, which back up your assertion that they are not relevant.
ApatheticNoMore
7-5-13, 6:18pm
The congressional elections merely make jerrymandering obvious - almost no districts are actually competitive.
As for state governors, well I think those usually are just the popular vote.
This reflects the success of a pluralistic system. I am an advocate of a balance of power across the tripartite government we have, though I am disappointed in the appalling leadership in the House majority leader.
There have been divisive eras in Congress, but the stonewalling that has been happening is commented upon by even stalwart R's. The efforts to defeat the President, both in Congressional action & in the polls has made the GOP ineffective, bordering on buffoons.
I don't buy the "cult of personality". The same voters were somehow hypnotized at the top of their ballots, yet managed to shake that off for their Congressional & Gubenatorial sections? Nope.
Again I ask, how does the current GOP seem relevant to you?
I agree with this evaluation. I don't think it's cult of personality at the national level, and somehow balanced and considered at the local level.
I disagree with you about this particular point. I don't believe for a minute that the government is collecting massive amounts of information simply to look for terrorists. It may take a few years, even decades, for it to happen, but one of these days people will start discovering that info gathered in these massive sweep-ups of info is being used for completely other purposes against people. Which means it would need to be considered to be within the public's interest for administration after administration, official after official. That sounds like a sure-fire sign of it being a "responsible accommodation to the realities of today".
And if it was truly about defending against the threat of terrorism at home ...You do realize that you're the one who decided it was just going to be about "terrorism at home" - right? That's all you.
If defending against civil liberties has truly changed, and isn't just being used as justification by the federal government, now that it was caught spying on its own citizens, then the politicians who support spying on citizens should talk about the need to modify the 4th amendment to suit our current circumstances.Or not. It is your opinion that the Fourth Amendment was violated. The FISA judges disagree. I tend to believe them.
I have the high hopes of a revived, centrist GOP, at least eventually.For that to happen, the party would need to first stop the institutionalized practice of eating their own, i.e., referring to moderates as RINOs. The more the GOP antagonizes its only links to the rest of the nation, the more those folks will find themselves a political home in a party that doesn't so badly ostracize their moderates (or actually even seeks out converts and gives them leadership positions!) What we've seen is the party concentrating around more and more extreme positions, pretty consistently.
The article, as IL pointed out, talks a lot about race, which I see as THE biggest social, and thus public policy, issue of this (admittedly young) century. Apparently, so does the author of the opinion piece, insofar as reviving the GOP is concerned. I think that's overly cynical: It is ostensibly implying that Latinos could be recruited by getting the Latinos to abandon their left-leaning economics by playing up the compatibility on right-leaning issues such as abortion. I don't see anyone within the GOP saying, "Heck we should change our economic priorities based on integration of Latino sentiments toward the poor."
The whole "Latino vote" has me stumped. Since I'm not Latino I'm not qualified to comment, so I'll comment on the "Norwegian vote". We don't all vote the same.
As for parties... Two? Three? Five? Why have any at all??? They're nothing more than government (read: taxpayer) subsidized clubs for power brokers anyway. This independent voter would like to gain a little independence from political parties. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on a smart grid.
Again I ask, how does the current GOP seem relevant to you?
I was also thinking along the lines of Alan's post regarding election results. It seems like that is the ultimate litmus test when talking about political parties and elected representatives. I'm also curious why you think the GOP is not relevant, redfox? I do understand that the Dems are more relevant to your POV (I'm the same way, just for the other party), but I don't quite get how that decreases or eliminates the relevance of the other side?
goldensmom
7-6-13, 10:22am
The whole "Latino vote" has me stumped. Since I'm not Latino I'm not qualified to comment, so I'll comment on the "Norwegian vote". We don't all vote the same..
I will comment on the 'English/Irish/German/Danish via Canada' vote, we also don’t all vote the same.
Which means it would need to be considered to be within the public's interest for administration after administration, official after official. That sounds like a sure-fire sign of it being a "responsible accommodation to the realities of today".
Or it means that the president, regardless of party, is all too happy to spy on citizens.
You do realize that you're the one who decided it was just going to be about "terrorism at home" - right? That's all you.
If it's not about keeping us safe from terrorists then what exactly are they spying on us for?
Or not. It is your opinion that the Fourth Amendment was violated. The FISA judges disagree. I tend to believe them.
Communications between Americans in America isn't subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Or it means that the president, regardless of party, is all too happy to spy on citizens.So either it is the way you want it viewed, or the other way it can be viewed. One or the other. No way to tell the difference between the two, except that one way makes you, personally, happier.
I am happier not abandoning my own discretion, which leads me to agree with all those folks the you don't trust, rather than trusting in your preference - no offense intended.
If it's not about keeping us safe from terrorists then what exactly are they spying on us for?My question for you is whether you really want to have an educational discussion about the matters that can be served by such surveillance, according to the existing laws, and with regard to the current tactics. If so, then how about starting a separate thread for that, making it clear that it is a constructive, educational thread, to learn such things, and not a thread to debate the validity of claims about what can be accomplished with such surveillance, nor the overall merit of such efforts. I really have no interest in engaging in petty bickering about whether the law does or does not provide for what these programs do, or about whether these approaches successfully accomplish those aims. That discussion can be summarized like this: One side will say, "Blue," and the other side will say, "Not blue!" Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Communications between Americans in America isn't subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.Correct.
buu, My point wasn't to start a bickering contest, but rather, to simply point out that I disagreed with your casual dismissal of point 3 from Zoebird's list. Personally I think that it's an issue that should be of major concern to Americans.
Fair enough. I simply don't believe that there is a path from disagreement to agreement about secrecy as a tool when the only way those who are opposed to it are willing to reconsider it is if the secrecy is revealed, and that's always where discussion of that matter leads.
I was also thinking along the lines of Alan's post regarding election results. It seems like that is the ultimate litmus test when talking about political parties and elected representatives. I'm also curious why you think the GOP is not relevant, redfox? I do understand that the Dems are more relevant to your POV (I'm the same way, just for the other party), but I don't quite get how that decreases or eliminates the relevance of the other side?
Thanks for asking Greg. What I had hoped to hear was from those who are R supporters, what about the current party stances speak to you? After reading the NYT editorial, I read the 2012 national platform for some deeper context. The editorial isn't the first of folks in the GOP ranks calling for retooling. How do y'all R's view his call to change?
I have the high hopes of a revived, centrist GOP, at least eventually. The article, as IL pointed out, talks a lot about race, which I see as THE biggest social, and thus public policy, issue of this (admittedly young) century. Apparently, so does the author of the opinion piece, insofar as reviving the GOP is concerned.
Again, I'd question the assertion that the GOP needs to be revived.
To continue in the recurring racial theme, as it seems to be a favorite, enjoy the following from Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w
Thanks for asking Greg. What I had hoped to hear was from those who are R supporters, what about the current party stances speak to you? After reading the NYT editorial, I read the 2012 national platform for some deeper context. The editorial isn't the first of folks in the GOP ranks calling for retooling. How do y'all R's view his call to change?
In truth I've become much more aligned with the (ideal) Libertarian stance that buu described some posts back. Simply put, I think the federal government is too big. Size aside, give me the Democratic method of providing safety nets with a more Republican approach to paying for them and you just might get my vote. Obviously that's only one of dozens of angles to consider, but you get the idea. What it means to me is that both parties need to evolve if they're going to survive, but the GOP would be well served, IMO, to put forward a face that isn't old, white and male.
The GOP needs to soften the stand on several social issues to remain appealing to me, which I guess plays into the development of a more centrist platform you mentioned. On the other side the GOP is often considered to be deeper in bed with corporate interests than the Dems. I'm not sure that perception really holds up under the bright light of day, but I do wish there was a little more distance between corporate America and the Grand Old Party, especially regarding the military-industrial complex.
I generally like the idea that the GOP is taking a hard line on immigration. It is a huge issue and we need to get it under control. I don't believe in unnecessary roadblocks for anyone who wants to immigrate, but we need to close the floodgates until we have a handle on things. I like balanced budget talk, even if I know its mostly just lip service. I believe Rep economic policy will ultimately lead to more job creation and a healthier economy. And I believe we need to have that first in order to pay for all the other goodies we all want. I also believe we need to develop domestic energy resources (taking nothing away from the need to develop renewables, just being realistic). What else?
ApatheticNoMore
7-7-13, 11:45am
In truth I've become much more aligned with the (ideal) Libertarian stance that buu described some posts back. Simply put, I think the federal government is too big.
It's too corrupt. But yea, actually it does a lot of what it does BECAUSE it is too big in a sense. Big in a way the government of France, or Norway is not - largest military in the world. And that explains enough.
On the other side the GOP is often considered to be deeper in bed with corporate interests than the Dems. I'm not sure that perception really holds up under the bright light of day,
it can't, not since the flood of corporate money, they both need money from corporations. It simply can't be true that only one party needs it.
but I do wish there was a little more distance between corporate America and the Grand Old Party, especially regarding the military-industrial complex.
there may be slight differences in the factions they take money from ...
I generally like the idea that the GOP is taking a hard line on immigration. It is a huge issue and we need to get it under control. I don't believe in unnecessary roadblocks for anyone who wants to immigrate, but we need to close the floodgates until we have a handle on things.
There are downsides to immigration (more population than the existing infrastructure can handle - that's already the case - overwhelmingly so). Plus those pushing it, not activists but people who actually matter to the powers that be, do often just want cheap labor (see the tech companies and the H1B situation - it's obvious). You're not even supposed to talk about the downsides, but I talk about them without any conviction "immigration is morally wrong" or anything much less "immigrants are bad people", just mentioning consequences.
I also believe we need to develop domestic energy resources (taking nothing away from the need to develop renewables, just being realistic). What else?
This is fracking and destroying the water supply in the meantime. It will leave us with a damaged landscape and then water will be the resource that's hard to come by (and we'll like utter fools for having poisoned our water for a short term fuel supply). Plus it's probably not better for the climate (because of methane - way more potent than carbon dioxide). Obama is on full speed ahead for this. It is a disaster.
Briefly, renewables ARE domestic! The technology & physical components can all be produced domestically.
Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I'm IN the renewable energy business. And yes, I'm domestic. It is simply not a viable option to replace fossil fuels at this time. I wish it were, but short of everyone stepping back 150 years it simply is not possible right now. We need a longer range plan, but as of now there is no national energy policy which is cause for part of my disappointment in the current administration. Fracking as currently done is wrong and needs to stop. There are options that do not include deadly poison. If we can proceed in that direction my level of opposition to the actual process drops, but I've had a chance to witness some of the problems first hand and it is not good. A national energy policy could address that as well.
I do agree with you there, gregg.
The main thing is that with a national energy policy, we can begin to build the right infrastructure to transfer to renewables over time. But yes, to do so "right now!" wouldn't work both in terms of technology and access to that technology.
It requires a lot of groundwork. Our national roads system, for example, didn't happen overnight. It took a long time for that highway system to be built and to be as effective as it is (heck, it's on-going). Why would we think we could just "flip the switch" to renewables "right now?"
But, definitely moving in that direction is a *great* idea.
On the other side the GOP is often considered to be deeper in bed with corporate interests than the Dems. I'm not sure that perception really holds up under the bright light of day ... I believe Rep economic policy will ultimately lead to more job creation and a healthier economy.I'm not sure that perception really holds up under the bright light of day. Globalization has destroyed the chances of Republican economic policy leading to more domestic job creation and a healthier domestic economy.
Globalization has destroyed the chances of Republican economic policy leading to more domestic job creation and a healthier domestic economy.
I'm not so gloomy about the prospects. For one, that rising tide of globalization can float all boats, including the US. Improvements in the domestic economy can easily be based on factors and policies that reach well beyond our borders. In fact, they have to be. One way Congress can encourage that is with policy that works to reduce the trade deficit by making American made goods more attractive overseas. Another way is by simply making American made goods more attractive in America. That is easier, faster and cheaper to implement. On the mild side the dreaded tax credits reduce the development cost of domestic goods and markets and can be used to support domestic job creation. At the more extreme end things like steeper tariffs can be applied to any imported goods. I don't think tariffs are a good idea mainly because the other side always reciprocates so all you've really done is increase the price on both sides, but they can be effective in target markets and for finite periods of time. I think Republicans are generally more likely to consider such options.
The rising tide of globalization COULD raise all boats, but Republican economic policies, specifically, work against that, devoid as they are of balancing measures providing consumers and employees comparable economic power to suppliers/employers. There is no magic way of "making American-made goods more attractive overseas." The most notable economic policies underlying the recent advances made in that specific aspect have been specifically those that resulted in a substantial disparity between profits and wages. I'm sure you've seen this data (http://www.econdataus.com/wagegap12.html). We could pass a law that halves every salary effectively 1/1/2014, and we're surely going to see unemployment vanish as employers hire more employees given that the cost of doing so is so much lower, and therefore higher employment levels would yield more profits, but I challenge you to defend the assertion that that actually constitutes "raising all boats". And the cutting of salaries in that manner is a practically perfect analogy despite any attempt to claim otherwise.
No one has explained what specific, concrete, definitively data-based and validated Republican economic proposal could be effected that "raises all boats" and in doing so will cause practically no new pain to those who cannot withstand pain (i.e., those suffering poverty), and that will cause very little if any new pain to those closest to the borderline. You cannot, and that's deliberate: Republican economic policy seeks to achieve economic macro-improvements: An increase in the overall measures. Republican economic policy doesn't care about the details, the nuances, the specifics of the impact on specific economic groups within the economy. Republican economic policy generally cares only if there is profit, not that "all boats" are "raised."
New tax credits raise deficits. No one has explained how the revenue to cover those new tax credits will be raised, without (again) causing significant new pain to those who cannot withstand pain, and those closest to the borderline. Again: This is because such nuances are beyond the concern of Republican economic policy.
One idea regarding tariffs is adopting a definitively parallel tariff policy: We'll treat your goods precisely as you treat ours. I really don't know if that'll help or hinder our efforts, but it sure sounds fair to me.
There is no magic way of "making American-made goods more attractive overseas."
Sure there is. Devalue the dollar.
Is that a Republican economic policy proposal?
In the last election cycle, I participated in the Republican Party as a delegate.
It was very educational. I did not observe a unified Party at all. I saw lots of younger people who were relatively socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and who were outnumbered by The Old Guard who seemed to want to use the Party as a club to impose their will on others, or who simply wanted to maintain their place in the Party and control of its resources.
In truth, I think for there to be any real change, we'll have to wait for a generation to die off.
For reference, I was in my late 40s at the time, and I was at the upper age range of the people who seemed to be reasonable. Most were in their 20s and 30s.
There is no place in the Republican Party these days for people like me.
ApatheticNoMore
7-8-13, 1:31pm
In truth, I think for there to be any real change, we'll have to wait for a generation to die off.
For reference, I was in my late 40s at the time, and I was at the upper age range of the people who seemed to be reasonable. Most were in their 20s and 30s.
There is no place in the Republican Party these days for people like me.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
Don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend a hand
... [you know the rest]
ApatheticNoMore
7-8-13, 1:36pm
ok that's odd, a post came unlinked - was just sillyness and Dylan-ness anyway. I heard that song, the other day ("the times they are a changing")- was really shocked how that generation or one prominent spokesman :), were so naive, though radical change was generational, so profoundly misguided. But it seemed to fit here.
Is that a Republican economic policy proposal?
Ha. You probably know better, but it WOULD make American goods more attractive (aka cheaper) in overseas markets. Modest devaluation isn't necessarily a poison pill either. There are potential benefits if the puppet masters didn't take it too far.
It would also have a depressive long-term effect on American standard-of-living, as foreign goods become incrementally more expensive. Not that I'm presenting that as a counter to your suggestion - but Republicans would.
Not that I'm presenting that as a counter to your suggestion - but Republicans would.
A careful re-read would show that it wasn't a suggestion on my part, only a statement to demonstrate that yes, there is in fact a way to make American goods more attractive to overseas buyers. Now, regarding your statement above, you're probably right about the depressive effect of higher priced foreign goods on the US standard of living. I tend to doubt, however, that it would be the right side of the aisle who would use that as a selling point. The Republican old guard has far more isolationist tendencies in their foreign policy mindset than the current crop of can't-we-all-be-friends Democrats. I think it is the left that would tend to play the lifestyle card as a way to keep borders and trade as open as possible.
I tend to doubt, however, that it would be the right side of the aisle who would use that as a selling point. The Republican old guard has far more isolationist tendencies in their foreign policy mindset than the current crop of can't-we-all-be-friends Democrats.The Republican old guard you're referring to died off in the Clinton years. Today's GOP old guard are not isolationist. You're simply mistaken, I believe: The GOP would indeed be the one to raise that objection - the Democrats would not.
No buu, that is not the old guard I'm referring to. Think DeLay, McConnell, etc. And yes, I believe it would be the Democrats who would raise the objections along the lines of what you suggested.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
iris lilies
7-10-13, 12:42am
Once again, I am very appreciative of the varying responses, perspectives, and all around well-considered thinking of our community here.
I have the high hopes of a revived, centrist GOP, at least eventually. The article, as IL pointed out, talks a lot about race, which I see as THE biggest social, and thus public policy, issue of this (admittedly young) century. Apparently, so does the author of the opinion piece, insofar as reviving the GOP is concerned.
How do you want the R party to move forward into the 21st century? How do you think this party can become relevant again?
I am not surprised that you see race as "THE biggest social, and tus public policy issue of this...century." You keep bringing it up. That's fine, you get to decide which issues are most important to you.
Now, as far as relevancy of the GOP:
While they may not have the numbers to plow through their agenda in D.C. they've got enough numbers to cause stalemate in D.C. for the Democratic agenda. That in itself is important and relevant to me. Since we are talking about issues important to us, I like the idea of nothing happening in Washington D.C. due to stalemate. I like the idea of the politicians in Congress yammering to themselves and banging gavels and filabustering while passing no legislation. I think they do harm, possibly more harm than good, when they create laws and laws and more laws. So let them think they are doing something in D.C. by holding their Congressional inquiries and being covered by the media. that is fairly harmless. Meanwhile, I will appreciate their lack of real activity as measured by laws coming out of Congress.
At the state level the GOP is even more important in keeping the Dems in check. We've got a Democratic governor but a Republican HOuse and Senate. That is nice.
gimmethesimplelife
7-10-13, 5:03am
I've always viewed Republicans as the party that causes fear in the lower social classes, as the party that ruins joy and hope by funneling the vast bulk of the money in society to the very top. But I have a friend recently - who happens to be very anti-Republican BTW - who pointed out that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, thereby causing decently paid blue collar factory jobs to flee to lower wagers and no union demands. Clinton was a DEMOCRAT. That silenced me as this is true. And as I've posted before, I very much respect the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, for standing up to and going against her party and getting Medicaid expanded in Arizona. She is a Republican and she did what I consider the right, humane, and most fiscally prudent thing to do for the state.
I think the point I am trying to make is that I am seeing things less black and white. Remember how before the Berlin Wall fell international politics had that simplistic West is good, Communism is evil thinking to it? I am thinking less that Democrat automatically equals good and Republican automatically equals bad. Which is not to say I am becomming a Republican. I just don't think life is that simplistic, that black and white, anymore. At least for me it's not. Rob
While they may not have the numbers to plow through their agenda in D.C. they've got enough numbers to cause stalemate in D.C. for the Democratic agenda.You're understanding the problem: To a great extent, what Republicans want is for nothing to be done, so the Senate filibuster, itself, gives Republicans a means of practically getting their way whether they have the votes or don't, and the House majority locks it in. Since the Democrats are not intransigent obstructionists, like the Republicans, they only way for Democrats to get that amount of power is to hold both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House. The fact that the Republicans can get that kind of power earning far less of the vote shows the corrupted imbalance in the system: The same amount of voter support should result in the same political power.
But I have a friend recently - who happens to be very anti-Republican BTW - who pointed out that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, thereby causing decently paid blue collar factory jobs to flee to lower wagers and no union demands. Clinton was a DEMOCRAT. That silenced me as this is true.I've mentioned before that I used to be Republican but left the party because it was taken over by religious reactionaries and selfish greed-mongers, and therefore no longer embodied anything even remotely resembling compassionate conservative values. But Bill Clinton made me comfortable being a Democrat because he is what Republicans should be. The draconian abandonment of compassionate conservative values by the GOP essentially created a vacuum in the center, and the Democrats, through the Democratic Leadership Council, was sucked into that void, thereby moved to the right. Although more left-leaning folks now are back in control of the Democratic Party, the centrists - yes, including Hillary Clinton - are still there, just waiting for an opportunity to come to the fore, again, and they're still there in the Democratic Party specifically because the Republican Party remains distinctly antisocial, callous, and brutally avaricious.
The same amount of voter support should result in the same political power.
Should it? Who will stand for the minority if opposition is not allowed?
For the record, I have high hopes for a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate beginning in 2015. If I get my wish, will you support Democrats taking a back seat to my preferred agenda?
Who will stand for the minority if opposition is not allowed?No one has said anything about opposition not being allowed. What you seemed to overlook was that I was talking about the minority having fiat - the ability to dictate their way. Neither side should have that. In this context, compromise should be the only defensible end-result, rather than either the majority or the minority prevailing.
For the record, I have high hopes for a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate beginning in 2015. If I get my wish, will you support Democrats taking a back seat to my preferred agenda?Neither side should have that. In this context, compromise should be the only defensible end-result, rather than either the majority or the minority prevailing.
I was talking about the minority having fiat - the ability to dictate their way.
If we declare Republicans obstructionist and grant them fiat in that regard wouldn't that basically be stating that the only goal of the GOP is to block any Democratic initiative? Regardless of feelings toward the GOP platform I think that thought process significantly underestimates the opposition....and their base. Could the revived GOP be preparing to go all Sun Tzu on the Dems in 2014? That would be an interesting show to watch.
If we declare Republicans obstructionist and grant them fiat in that regard wouldn't that basically be stating that the only goal of the GOP is to block any Democratic initiative? That's a good way of putting it.
Regardless of feelings toward the GOP platform I think that thought process significantly underestimates the opposition....and their base.Not in the slightest. It is a very concise but still quite clear characterization of their overriding perspective as it pertains to many of the issues we discuss.
Not in the slightest. It is a very concise but still quite clear characterization of their overriding perspective as it pertains to many of the issues we discuss.
See ya' in 2014.
Don't get me wrong: There's no doubt that they'll try to sell themselves differently - they have to in order to get elected. The only question is how many times will American voters be willing to be duped: "Trickle down", "No new taxes", "WMDs in Iraq", etc.
Don't get me wrong: There's no doubt that they'll try to sell themselves differently - they have to in order to get elected. The only question is how many times will American voters be willing to be duped: "Trickle down", "No new taxes", "WMDs in Iraq", etc.
One less time than they will with "Change".
As if ACA isn't "change". >8)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.