Wherefore & whither the GOP? (Sept 2010)

[foolsguinea]

or, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

Since I was hijacking the Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12900674#post12900674) thread, I started this one for "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"
Neither, I'd say. As much as people like to complain that the "Democrats appear leaderless", I don't see any leaders in the Republican Party, either in the Congress or outside of it. Palin is a vacuum inside a vacuum, and Gingrich hasn't realized it's not 1994. Romney is a somewhat shady character to some (I know more than a few Republicans who will stay at home rather than vote for a Mormon), Huckabee is "look at me, I'm Mr. Religion!" and little else, and the list goes on. Dear God, is it going to be Jeb Bush after all? A veritable dynasty of mediocrity?

If Huckabee emerged as the GOP's leader, that would signify an important change in the party's direction, because he's not just Mr. Religion, he's also a Huey Long economic populist who might ally with the Dems on many economic issues -- a combination that taps a whole new base, as there are lot of Americans who think the same way, and they're highly unsatisfied with the GOP as it is, dominated by business interests.Pfft. He's a nitwit who endorsed the "Fair Tax." With that kind of populism, I'll take the elitist moderates of the Democratic Party.

[foolsguinea]

As I said, other thread:I don't think the GOP HAS any leadership right now. This is why Obama has to keep on introducing new "opponents" to harass in speeches (Boehner? Really?). http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-boehner-20100910,0,2752608.storyAnd this is a reason to put this pack of wild dogs in Congress in greater numbers how?

Also, I'm from SW Missouri, which is very hardcore GOP. I laugh at the idea that the GOP don't have leadership. Maybe you think people like Roy Blunt, John Boehner, & Mitch McConnell aren't good leaders, but the Republicans follow them because the party follows whatever passes for a leader. Certainly more than the Democrats follow Obama.

Don't believe me? Where were all the Republicans smarter than George Bush who stood up to him & stopped the war in Iraq? Where was his 2004 primary challenge from the sensible right? (That's the point I wrote the GOP off.) The GOP will follow the leader down to hell.

The Dems aren't much better--Obama does suffer some disrespect to his youth, but Democrats rolled over for Bush's war authorization too. Raising the proportion of GOP congressmen will steer the country in the direction Boehner, your "non-leader," wants. Looks like he's leading to me.

Further, it will encourage the GOP's behavior. Why should these guys be rewarded for the last two years?Another way of looking at it is that the GOP is led by the dead hand of half-remembered principles & assumptions. That's not "real leadership" either I suppose.It is significant that Nixon was the last Republican POTUS elected before movement conservatism took control of the GOP. Apparently, movement conservatism does not equate to fiscal conservatism."Fiscal conservatism" has two three meanings. The careful, responsible, long-term planning meaning, & the "cut taxes on the rich" meaning--and the "bankrupt the government to destroy the welfare state" subset thereof.

...

Consider the Democratic Party's position. Every time they propose a regulation (like, "Companies selling insurance have to provide it when the customer needs it") or raise a tax (even back to historic norms), they're denounced as communists & unAmerican--as aliens in effect. And about a third of the country believes it! After a while, a centrist patriotic party like the Dems gets worn down.

I'm foolsguinea, & I'm a former GOP voter. I had to learn to stop legitimizing that party.Hardly. This is the fallacy of a two-party system. The GOP screwed up, big. Four years in the wilderness is not long enough. And you can't blame the moderate Dem establishment for not solving all the nation's problems in two years as if that's equivalent to the GOP creating so many problems in 12 years.] The electorate is pissed, scared, nervous and cranky and will grab onto whoever promises them SOMETHING to make it all better (sounds like my kids when they were toddlers).Well, yes, there's a reason we don't give toddlers the vote.

[foolsguinea]

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

So you tell me. What's keeping you in the party?

[Algher]

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

So you tell me. What's keeping you in the party?

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

[foolsguinea]

The objection to federal health insurance is strange to me.

1. We already have massive public spending on health care.

2. The GOP don't have the stones to actually make Medicare cheaper:
a. "Starve the Beast" was supposed to force a situation where Republican lawmakers found it politically acceptable to make cuts in entitlements; It hasn't worked.
b. Medicare Part D was actually more expensive due to GOP ideology that a private company should be making a profit from a public fund.

3, At least if we have a universal system, we get away from the working public paying for a single-payer system which does not benefit them.

[Mozart1220]

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

So you tell me. What's keeping you in the party?

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

I like Liberals on the courts because I like the people represented over the corporations.

Republicans make things federal issues too.

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment, they just don't see the need for individual arsenals and military weapons in the hands of the public.

And every other civilized nation has a single payer system and they seem to like it. The ONLY reason WE don't is that the corporate insurance and drug companies don't like it.

Oh, and LBJ could hardly be blamed for Vietnam. Eisenhower got that one underway. Kennedy tried to end it and see what happened to him?

[pkbites]

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment,

Don't even try to tell me you had a straight face while posting this.

they just don't see the need for individual arsenals and military weapons in the hands of the public.

You mean militia weapons?:rolleyes:

It is Democrats who always push for restrictions on any guns, both federally and locally. Remember, it was Democrat sponsored gun bans that eventually lead to the 2 recent SCOTUS rulings overturning them.

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment,

:dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious:

[Bricker]

or, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"


But you acknowledge that all indications are that quite a few folks are planning on doing it in a few weeks, yes?

[Ludovic]

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

Why go out of the way to avoid calling the party by its name?

[Chronos]

The biggest affront to the Second Amendment didn't come from the Democrats. It was Republicans who abolished the militias that the Second says are so essential. What's the point of militias if they're just absorbed into the federal military, and no longer under state control?

[BrainGlutton]

You mean militia weapons?:rolleyes:

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia." :rolleyes:

[pkbites]

You mean militia weapons?:rolleyes:

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia." :rolleyes:

Apples and oranges. You're talking about groups of people while I was talking about equipment.

In any case, I doubt the drafters had the likes of Jenna Jameson in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, either!

[Shodan]

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia." :rolleyes:I didn't realize you were an "original intent" kind of guy.

Regards,
Shodan

[otternell]

Over the last couple of years, I have been shifting away from Republican. I think the reason I am shifting away, is exactly why some are still embracing it:
Social issues. I put my social allegiances on the back burner for years, because I thought that Republicans were the better economic party. The last couple of years has me questioning that they are on my side economically speaking. I am the polar opposite of Republican on social issues.

My dad and brothers are Republican because they really hate Obama. My boss is Republican (he claims that he's Tea Party and Palin all the way, as if there's a difference) and he routinely talks about the "culture of life" as opposed to the "culture of death", and lists all the things that make up the culture of life, which are all broadly social issues. So, I am seeing a bit of bigotry in the fam and social issues in the boss.

[Ludovic]

My dad and brothers are Republican because they really hate Obama. My boss is Republican (he claims that he's Tea Party and Palin all the way, as if there's a difference) and he routinely talks about the "culture of life" as opposed to the "culture of death", and lists all the things that make up the culture of life, which are all broadly social issues. So, I am seeing a bit of bigotry in the fam and social issues in the boss.

Ironically, if the Teabaggers get into power, I'm betting they won't make any headway at all toward solving the deficit, which they claim is their raison d'etre. Even with control of Congress they simply won't have the political power. Same thing goes for control of immigration, they won't do anything about that either.

But they sure will be able to explode the deficit with lower taxes and start with the troglodyte social legislation.

[elucidator]

...But you acknowledge that all indications are that quite a few folks are planning on doing it in a few weeks, yes?

Is that a "neener neener!" or an "Oh, fuck!"?

[BrainGlutton]

In any case, I doubt the drafters had the likes of Jenna Jameson in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, either!

You might be surprised. Guys are guys, the world over and for all times. ;)

[Bricker]

...But you acknowledge that all indications are that quite a few folks are planning on doing it in a few weeks, yes?

Is that a "neener neener!" or an "Oh, fuck!"?

It's more of an observation about the OP's subtitle, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"

But when the polls predict a large-scale victory for the GOP, when control of the House is widely thought to be a sure-thing switch back to the GOP, then the question becomes a bit blinder. At the least, the tone should change: "Why are all these people voting GOP?" one might ask. That at least captures the honest lack of understanding of the choice, while acknowledging that a large chunk of the electorate is apparently making that choice.

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.

[BrainGlutton]

Is that a "neener neener!" or an "Oh, fuck!"?

It's more of an observation about the OP's subtitle, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"

But when the polls predict a large-scale victory for the GOP, when control of the House is widely thought to be a sure-thing switch back to the GOP, then the question becomes a bit blinder. At the least, the tone should change: "Why are all these people voting GOP?" one might ask. That at least captures the honest lack of understanding of the choice, while acknowledging that a large chunk of the electorate is apparently making that choice.

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.

Fair point, but I read the OP as being directed to Republicans: "What's keeping you in the party?" Considering that those Pubs in power the past few years have such a crappy track record and the hard-right Tea Partiers now rising to leadership are obviously even worse.

Got any answers to that?

[Fear Itself]

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.Really? It suggests that the OP recognizes that people still vote for the GOP. That is what the "still voting" part means. The only fact is question is why.

[Bricker]

Fair point, but I read the OP as being directed to Republicans: "What's keeping you in the party?" Considering that those Pubs in power the past few years have such a crappy track record and the hard-right Tea Partiers now rising to leadership are obviously even worse.

Got any answers to that?

Of course.

The other side is worse.

On a majority of issues across the board, I tend to side with Republicans' stated goals over Democrats' stated goals. I can list them, but I see the result then slding into a half-dozen mini-debates on whether Republicans are serious about their opposition to abortion, how much Democrats have back-burnered their attempts to narrow gun rights, and the like.

Don't read this as, "So, therefore, the Republicans are perfect for me!"

[Bricker]

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.Really? It suggests that the OP recognizes that people still vote for the GOP. That is what the "still voting" part means. The only fact is question is why.

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. "Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?" would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.

[Fear Itself]

Really? It suggests that the OP recognizes that people still vote for the GOP. That is what the "still voting" part means. The only fact is question is why.

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. I disagree. "Anyone" is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.

[Steve MB]

"Anyone," suggests a small number

On the contrary -- the term is so generic as to suggest just the opposite.

[Bricker]

"Anyone," suggests a small number

On the contrary -- the term is so generic as to suggest just the opposite.

That's fine. It's certainly possible I was mistaken about what inference most readers would draw. The benefit of my commenting on it remains: removing it from the area of inference and into the realm of explicitly stated, where there is no ambiguity.

[gonzomax]

The tea party candidates ran against Boehner backed Repubs and whipped them . That has to put the Repubs in drawing rooms trying to find ways to control the tea baggers. The teasers are not likely to go along with the Boehners in voting if they actually get elected. The Repubs love to have absolute control over their pols. This could be interesting.
This is a repudiation of the Repubs, not the Dems. Big fun coming up in November.

[Bricker]

The tea party candidates ran against Boehner backed Repubs and whipped them . That has to put the Repubs in drawing rooms trying to find ways to control the tea baggers. The teasers are not likely to go along with the Boehners in voting if they actually get elected. The Repubs love to have absolute control over their pols. This could be interesting.
This is a repudiation of the Repubs, not the Dems. Big fun coming up in November.

Of course it is.

And when the House changes hands, that will be an even bigger repudiation of the Republicans. Why, if the GOP gains control of the Senate too, they'll be positively marginalized!

Thank goodness the Republicans can't get the White House, too. If they won all three, it would just show how completely despised they were.

[elucidator]

Do you approve? Will you cheer the ascendancy of reasonable, rational Republicans like Palin, O'Donnel and Paladino over the insanely radical Obama? You're being a bit coy, here, Bricker, so perhaps if we cut to the chase? Are you pleased with the direction the Republican Party is moving in? What positive benefits do you see in all of this?

[foolsguinea]

You mean militia weapons?:rolleyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

"Militia weapons" are not necessarily assault rifles.

As for the supposed sanctity of the Second Amendment: People talk about original intent, but we can surmise that given enough familiarity with rifling & auto-fire, the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

What does this have to with the threads's point? Not much.

But: Rural pols of either party tend to be more pro-gun, urban pols of either party more pro-gun-control. Stray bullets are scarier in densely populated areas. Being unarmed is scarier when the cops are twenty+ miles away. Rural voters voting against Dems because Dems are supposedly anti-gun tend to reinforce the appearance that Dems are anti-gun; a vicious cycle.
Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia." :rolleyes:I didn't realize you were an "original intent" kind of guy.Well, that was a dig at "original intent" justifications for things that aren't the "original intent." In any case, our gun laws should be based on present needs, not appeals to the authority of a text written in the age of muskets. That may mean licensed private gun ownership for manuals & semi-autos, with full autos banned. And that's a position we have now & can be accepted by both parties.

[pkbites]

the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.

But none of this erases the fact that every major piece of gun control legislation in the last 40 years (both federally and at the stat/local level) has been introduced and pushed by Democrats.

[foolsguinea]

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.Rather, there are insufficient good reasons to vote for a party that does the following:

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.

Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.

The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman's arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by "conservatives" & will make bad decisions because of that.

The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.

Once they have a "leader"--President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say--the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it's the opposite of their previous stated opinions. Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos (http://takimag.com/)'s bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, "We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush."

My objections to the GOP are mainly economic, but politics is mainly economic. If the GOP were as open to New-Dealism & tax rises as the Democrats are to social conservatism, it would be another matter. But even in that hypothetical case, Congress doesn't really spend most of its time (or, necessarily, any of its time) on the claptrap that are called "social issues" today. Voting for a Congressman on the basis of his pretended personal opinion of homosexuality is akin to picking your accountant on the basis of what he says about your daughter's taste in manga--mostly beside the point. Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"The number of people voting against their own interests does not in this case increase the apparent sensibleness of their decision. They're following a memory of a GOP that was not fully discredited, not judging the party on its record in the last decade."Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. "Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?" would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.Well, it's meant to convey that not even a small number should be. All the more tragic that a large number will.

[foolsguinea]

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.So it's your contention that the entire culture changed its views on guns based on non-environmental factors? That gun control advocacy has nothing to do with changing circumstances, but is due to an insufficient continuity with the divine founders?[...] every major piece of gun control legislation in the last 40 years (both federally and at the stat/local level) has been introduced and pushed by Democrats.Yet Howard Dean has a very high approval rating from the NRA, & Rudy Giuliani does not. Are the Democrats to be blamed for winning urban & therefore more pro-gun-control voters?

Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running teh House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent--though they were more committed in fact to being the party of tax cuts.

[foolsguinea]

Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running the House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent.

...though they were more committed in fact to being the party of tax cuts at all costs. Don't choose insolvency in the name of gun rights. There are rural pro-gun Dems who would love your vote & can balance the budget.

[pkbites]

Yet Howard Dean has a very high approval rating from the NRA, & Rudy Giuliani does not.

I don't care what the NRA says. Dean supports both the assault weapons ban the Brady Bill, both Democrat pushed legislations.

Rudy Giuliani is the "country club" Republican (not a RINO, but on that side of the political spectrum) that the party needs to weed out.

Far more Dems than Pubs support gun control legislation, negating the statement that they don't have a problem with the Second Amendment. By their collective actions clearly they do.

[Bricker]

Do you approve? Will you cheer the ascendancy of reasonable, rational Republicans like Palin, O'Donnel and Paladino over the insanely radical Obama? You're being a bit coy, here, Bricker, so perhaps if we cut to the chase? Are you pleased with the direction the Republican Party is moving in? What positive benefits do you see in all of this?

None of the events of late are an unqualified good.

But I think I would rather have a GOP-led House, tempered in its desire for great excesses by the minority Democrats, than a Democrat-led House tempered by Republicans.

[Bricker]

In any case, our gun laws should be based on present needs, not appeals to the authority of a text written in the age of muskets.

Should our press laws be based on the Internet and not the hand-cranked presses?

It's all very well to say the Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press when the press is limited to what paper t can crank out. But when I can tweet something to 50,000 followers instantly, there's no reason to appeal to the authority of the ancient minds who thought "press," meant pressing ink on paper.

[Chronos]

Far more Dems than Pubs support gun control legislation, negating the statement that they don't have a problem with the Second Amendment.And far more Pubs than Dems supported the abolition of the militias that the Second Amendment clearly states are essential. The Republicans might lay a claim to being the party of the Second Half of the Second Amendment, but the Democrats have a pretty solid hold on the First Half.

[pkbites]

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.

[Merijeek]

the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.

And that is why I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

-Joe

[Bricker]

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. I disagree. "Anyone" is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.

Interestingly, the author of the phrase seems to be agreeing with me:

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. "Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?" would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.Well, it's meant to convey that not even a small number should be. All the more tragic that a large number will.

[Bricker]

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.

Actually, I contend that the problem is the "no real hope," business you mention. We should be privitizing Social Security, not continuing to shovel money into an entitlement program. I think we have a better chance of moving in the right direction with the GOP at the helm.


Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.


Reaganomics was a success. Not an unmixed success, but a success.


The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman's arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by "conservatives" & will make bad decisions because of that.

Pretty tenuous claim of "proof." I completely disagree.


The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.


I disagree that this problem is more GOP than Democratic. Carter was no prize. And any party that's running Alvin Greene for Senate can't really stand for the proposition that they're the party of weeding out lackluster candidates.


Once they have a "leader"--President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say--the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it's the opposite of their previous stated opinions. Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos (http://takimag.com/)'s bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, "We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush."


While I agree party discipline is tighter in the GOP, I disagree that it's monolithic, and I disagree that this is a terrible thing.

Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.


Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.

This post answers your question. You can no longer claim to be unaware of why some people are voting GOP.

[Fear Itself]

I disagree. "Anyone" is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.

Interestingly, the author of the phrase seems to be agreeing with me:

Well, it's meant to convey that not even a small number should be. All the more tragic that a large number will.I interpret that the exact opposite. "Should be" being the operative words in that sentence.

[sleeping]

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.


Reagan ran deficits, too. This is actually a Republican strategy that was invented in the 70s by conservative Jude Wanniski. It's called the Two Santa Claus theory. Essentially, Wanniski pointed out that the liberal Democrats of the 60s and 70s always increased government benefits for people, making it difficult for Republicans to take the opposite side (since people would always see the Dems as giving them things, and Republicans as being stingy). Therefore, he proposed that Republicans push for tax cuts ("tax relief") without regard for the deficit, and market the tax cuts toward the middle class. Then, once the Democrats took office, they would scream about the deficit, and maintain that all spending must be cut to balance the budget--thus, no increase in benefits could take place. You can see this strategy with Reagan/Bush to Clinton and now Bush to Obama.

[BrainGlutton]

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.

Whom exactly is this "unorganized militia" supposed to fight, and why?

[E-Sabbath]

Bricker, explain this to me simply. Why is privatizing social security a good idea? Basically, you'd turn it over to private money-market managers? Or would you turn it into something individual people have to manage, and mostly won't? I thought half the power in a large fund was that it _was_ all together.

[pkbites]

Whom exactly is this "unorganized militia" supposed to fight, and why?

Could be a home invader, could be a rogue sheriff (it's happened).

[foolsguinea]

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.As I said above:Don't choose insolvency in the name of gun rights. There are rural pro-gun Dems who would love your vote & can balance the budget.Gun rights advocates & right-to-lifers are the great sucker movements of the GOP. I came from the pro-life side (I was pro-gun-control) but it's the same thing. Getting hung up on one "individual rights" issue & not seeing the big picture, or even taking the bargain that you'll let the rentiers bleed the country--and now, even bankrupt the government--for that one issue. It''s irresponsible.Should our press laws be based on the Internet and not the hand-cranked presses?Sure, why not? What possible reason do we have to base them on hand-cranked presses now?It's all very well to say the Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press when the press is limited to what paper t can crank out. But when I can tweet something to 50,000 followers instantly, there's no reason to appeal to the authority of the ancient minds who thought "press," meant pressing ink on paper.And yet, "freedom of the press" did not appear in isolation--that would have been baldly plutocratic in the day--but alongside "freedom of speech."

By contrast, the Constitution does not explicitly ensure both the right to bear arms and the right to bear them unlicensed & unorganized. And it does not explicitly define the right to bear arms as a right to use witchcraft, which today's weapons are by 18th-Century standards.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. You have the right to a reasonable gun which you are provably able to handle & control; if you keep your nose clean & go through a licensing regimen. If we were really following the Constitution, you should have to also show up for citizen militia drills once in a while. Or do you think that a bunch of individuals keeping arms only for their personal protection &/or amusement are either the intent or the meaning of the Second?

[pkbites]

The fact is every time someone says

Originally Posted by Mozart1220
Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment

Invariably there is always a qualifier:

Originally Posted by Mozart1220
they just don't see the need for.........

There is always a "but".



The truth is collectively Democrats DO have a problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions.

[Chronos]

And the Republicans have an even bigger problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions. When Democrat Brian Schweitzer tried to recall the Montana National Guard from Iraq, where were all the supposedly pro-Second-Amendment Republicans who were supporting him?

[foolsguinea]

Cute, Bricker. I'll start at the end of post #41.This post answers your question. You can no longer claim to be unaware of why some people are voting GOP.I'm hardly unaware, considering I used to be one of you guys. I simply am frustrated at your (not thy, Bricker, but y'all's) continued insolence, ignorance, & bullheaded insistence that your party's policies are not responsible for the servility, corruption, & general fiscal insanity of government since 1981.We should be privitizing Social Security, not continuing to shovel money into an entitlement program. I think we have a better chance of moving in the right direction with the GOP at the helm.Since you apparently consider "entitlement program" an epithet, I hope, until we are able to make cuts in the extremely popular HHS programs, you will support raising taxes enough to gradually buy out T-bill holders, so we're not continuing to shovel money to them. And let's recall that Social Security & Medicare are so popular that when the GOP controlled Congress & the White House they failed to restructure SS & actually expanded Medicare. So now you can no longer claim to be unaware of why those still exist in their present form.

Of course, one of W Bush's two great failures to lead the GOP Congress where he would have liked (the other being immigration reform) was SS privatization. Presumably this was in part because privatizing SS would have required a considerable tax increase, presumably on payroll & thus on all American businesses.Reaganomics was a success. Not an unmixed success, but a success.True. Reaganomics was a success at increasing the after-tax financial situation of a taxpayer constituency who have happily funded the GOP on the condition that they offer more of the same. Both times it was tried, it was a failure at balancing the budget, it was a failure at increasing the wealth of the lower 50% of Americans, & it was a failure at dealing with structural demand failures. Over time, the lack of regular demand-side stimulus led to long-term unemployment & homelessness for some, the return of 50-hour+ workweeks for others, & a consumer economy where the consumption base was only keeping the system alive on borrowed money.Pretty tenuous claim of "proof." I completely disagree.Of course you do, you're ignorant.I disagree that this problem is more GOP than Democratic. Carter was no prize. And any party that's running Alvin Greene for Senate can't really stand for the proposition that they're the party of weeding out lackluster candidates.Carter was indeed a harbinger of the idiotic politics to come. He was the first of the "outsider state governor" presidents. But he was outshone in the stupid by Reagan & W Bush. Carter at least tried to explain to the American people that grown-up reality is not the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Reagan & Bush played to & encouraged the overgrown two-year-old demographic.While I agree party discipline is tighter in the GOP, I disagree that it's monolithic, and I disagree that this is a terrible thing.Well, you're right there. I'll concede that point. Bush got his war in Iraq, but not Social Security privatization or legal status for guest workers. But why did he get his war?

Perhaps it was because, "politics stops at the water's edge," indicating that the POTUS has broad fascistic power to inflict violence on foreign territories; if so, that's frightening.

Perhaps it's simply that the legislators were (& in some cases still are) misled on the merits of this war; that's perhaps forgivable.

But the disturbing possibility occurs to me that in fact the Iraq War went forward not because Bush wanted it, but because the GOP as a party actually was for it. That means scapegoating Bush is a lie, & the problem with the GOP is not that they are slavish followers but that they are bloodthirsty warmongers--not fascists, then, but imperialists. Hardly a recommendation.

[foolsguinea]

Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.Let me try & clarify what I said quickly, rashly, unclearly, &--to be honest--unfairly there. Any definition of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws, instead defining "social issues" as abortion, drug use, & homosexuality, is not actually addressing the issues of society. "Social issues" has become associated in the press with "morals issues." "Morals issues" are what I meant by "bigot-baiting." Which I'll concede was unfair, but there is an ethnic/regional (rural against urban) undercurrent to the drug war & the anti-gay movement.

On the other hand, poverty, homelessness, wages, worker's rights, the structure of American business, these are really social issues. But they are substantially ignored on the right, which sees them as matters for private initiative unless a sufficient outcry forces them to respond.

So, no, I was not calling you a caterer to bigots, & I certainly think one can in good faith support a low-tax low-service régime. But just because an opinion is held in good faith doesn't mean it's the right policy.

[Robot Arm]

During the "Contract With America" days, I recall hearing pundits speculate that Democrats would need to spend their time out of office looking for ways to moderate their views and move to the center to recapture votes. Does anyone else find it odd that Republicans seem to be using their time in the minority to do just the opposite; to double down on their traditional rhetoric and put forward candidates that are more extreme than the ones who got voted out?

[Fear Itself]

That's because Democrats suck at framing the debate in terms that promote their current agenda. Remember 2004, the whole "Dean Scream" and how Republicans said America would never vote for an "angry" candidate? Fast forward to 2010, and now Republicans wear their righteous anger as a badge of honor, even suggesting "second amendment" solutions if their demands were not adopted. Republicans have no problem with cognitive dissonance of their messages, because they know their constituency hasn't got the intellectual chops to say, "Wait a minute....". They know there is a sizable population who are easily manipulated by emotional hot buttons, and who rarely ask questions when one message conflicts with another. The Democrats problem is they are too smart for their own good, and they are less willing to treat the electorate like idiots who are eager to be deceived.

[Mr Smashy]

Republicans have no problem with cognitive dissonance of their messages, because they know their constituency hasn't got the intellectual chops to say, "Wait a minute....". They know there is a sizable population who are easily manipulated by emotional hot buttons, and who rarely ask questions when one message conflicts with another. The Democrats problem is they are too smart for their own good, and they are less willing to treat the electorate like idiots who are eager to be deceived.

You realize how condescending and patronizing this post sounds, don't you? Liberals often bristle when being called elitist by the Rush's and Sean's of the world, but it's attitudes like this that continue to extend the stereotype.

If a Republican were to say similar things about, say, the 'Rev' Sharpton's stump speeches to his constituents, he/she would be instantly branded as a hater, rascist, wants to go back to the plantation days, etc. Even the more mainstream Dems appeal to emotion, Davis vs Goliath, let's vote everyone more benefits without regard to the consequences, etc. And does the Dem electorate ask questions when one message conflicts with another? ("We need to get our deficit and debt under control.... and we need to pass a new healthcare entitlement that has just used up most of the potential savings available to do so").

The truth is, there are emotional Americans on both sides of the spectrum.

PS: I know that most of the folks on this board are so far left that they make Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan, so I realize that I'm swimming upstream here. And I know it's fashionable on this board to sneer at the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging 2nd amendment types who cling to their guns and religion (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article).

[Fear Itself]

You realize how condescending and patronizing this post sounds, don't you? I certainly hope so. If the shoe fits, and all that. No one ever lost money by underestimating the critical thinking of the average Republican voter. There. I said it. Now, react with faux shock and hand wringing.

[Steve MB]

Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.


Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.

Someone who claims to be in favor of small government, but advocates for government action to favor his preferred personal lifestyle and disfavor others, is either incapable of understanding the contradiction (i.e. too stupid to form any sort of coherent belief system) or deliberately attempting to obfuscate it (i.e. not arguing in good faith). In either case, the description "bigot-baiting" fits; the only difference is in whether or not it is being done intentionally.

It is, of course, possible to reject government activism to heal the ills of society without being a bigot, but only if one consistently rejects such activism whether or not it suits one's personally preferred goals and outcomes.

[Steve MB]

As for the supposed sanctity of the Second Amendment: People talk about original intent, but we can surmise that given enough familiarity with rifling & auto-fire, the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

Non Sequitur.

It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.(emphasis added)

[BrainGlutton]

If a Republican were to say similar things about, say, the 'Rev' Sharpton's stump speeches to his constituents, he/she would be instantly branded as a hater, rascist, wants to go back to the plantation days, etc.

With some justification, you must admit . . . Heck, even the speaker's putting "Rev." in quotes would be fair grounds for imputing something of that sort of attitude.

[Bricker]

Bricker, explain this to me simply. Why is privatizing social security a good idea? Basically, you'd turn it over to private money-market managers? Or would you turn it into something individual people have to manage, and mostly won't? I thought half the power in a large fund was that it _was_ all together.

You'd give people the option of investing their social security contributions in the market, just as the 401(k) systems do now.

[Bricker]

Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.Let me try & clarify what I said quickly, rashly, unclearly, &--to be honest--unfairly there. Any definition of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws, instead defining "social issues" as abortion, drug use, & homosexuality, is not actually addressing the issues of society.

Wow. Yes, that's a useful clarification, and one I can hardly disagree with.


"Social issues" has become associated in the press with "morals issues." "Morals issues" are what I meant by "bigot-baiting." Which I'll concede was unfair, but there is an ethnic/regional (rural against urban) undercurrent to the drug war & the anti-gay movement.


Again, agreed -- more strong agreement with the statement as it applies to the anti-gay movement than the drug war, because I do think one can more readily identify principled support for various anti-drug measures.


So, no, I was not calling you a caterer to bigots, & I certainly think one can in good faith support a low-tax low-service régime. But just because an opinion is held in good faith doesn't mean it's the right policy.

True, of course. But it's a defensible policy, one that can be discussed among reasonable people.

[Bricker]

Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.

Someone who claims to be in favor of small government, but advocates for government action to favor his preferred personal lifestyle and disfavor others, is either incapable of understanding the contradiction (i.e. too stupid to form any sort of coherent belief system) or deliberately attempting to obfuscate it (i.e. not arguing in good faith). In either case, the description "bigot-baiting" fits; the only difference is in whether or not it is being done intentionally.

It is, of course, possible to reject government activism to heal the ills of society without being a bigot, but only if one consistently rejects such activism whether or not it suits one's personally preferred goals and outcomes.

Not true.

Someone can claim, entirely self-consistently, that the proper role of government is to protect the morals and values of Americans and at the same time maximize their economic freedom by adopting a hands-off policy in the economic sphere.

[otternell]

Not true.

Someone can claim, entirely self-consistently, that the proper role of government is to protect the morals and values of Americans and at the same time maximize their economic freedom by adopting a hands-off policy in the economic sphere.

I am trying to understand this position, because it seems very inconsistent to me, so this discussion is helping me understand the basic TP position better. I can understand what you are saying in the quote, however, I don't hear that out of any politician. So while yes someone can claim . . . . I don't hear them actually claiming it. So there should be no surprise that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance that's driving some people away.

Do you think that they are just hoping that no one notices the apparent contradiction? Or is someone saying it and it never gets picked up by bloggers or the news?

[Steve MB]

Not true.

Someone can claim, entirely self-consistently, that the proper role of government is to protect the morals and values of Americans and at the same time maximize their economic freedom by adopting a hands-off policy in the economic sphere.

I await:

1. Your explanation of how the government can (for example) tell someone he can't buy pictures of nekkid women without interfering in the economic sphere, or

2. Your assertion that the items cited by foolsguinea (poverty, homelessness, & living wage) have nothing whatsoever to do with "morals and values", or

3. Your admission of error and logical incoherence.

[E-Sabbath]

You'd give people the option of investing their social security contributions in the market, just as the 401(k) systems do now.

Now, given that Social Security is supposed to be the suspenders and belt of 'at least you won't starve', I've got concerns with this concept. Bush wanted to do that really badly, and if he'd done it, we would have plunged the entire SS fund into the market about a month before it plunged. Gone. Wiped out. Decades of interest, lost in seconds.

Given that set of happenings, and given that the people who will make the worst possible investments are the people who will probably need it the most, I've got to be concerned here, Bricker, that the idea of investing in the market with this money, is possibly the worst possible idea someone can come up with. This is a T-Bill investment, not a mutual fund investment.

[Merijeek]

2. Your assertion that the items cited by foolsguinea (poverty, homelessness, & living wage) have nothing whatsoever to do with "morals and values", or


You seem the be forgetting the part of the Bible (the source of all morals, just ask any GOPer) where Jesus quoted Ford Fairlaine: "The poor? Fuck 'em."

-Joe

[elucidator]

All that needs be done to protect SS privatization investments is some sort of restrictions. Say, limit them to triple-A rated investment securities, which, as everybody knows, are perfectly safe. Well, sorta perfectly safe. Kinda.

[NDP]

Republicans have no problem with cognitive dissonance of their messages, because they know their constituency hasn't got the intellectual chops to say, "Wait a minute....". They know there is a sizable population who are easily manipulated by emotional hot buttons, and who rarely ask questions when one message conflicts with another. The Democrats problem is they are too smart for their own good, and they are less willing to treat the electorate like idiots who are eager to be deceived.

You realize how condescending and patronizing this post sounds, don't you? Liberals often bristle when being called elitist by the Rush's and Sean's of the world, but it's attitudes like this that continue to extend the stereotype.

...

PS: I know that most of the folks on this board are so far left that they make Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan, so I realize that I'm swimming upstream here. And I know it's fashionable on this board to sneer at the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging 2nd amendment types who cling to their guns and religion (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article).

And do you realize how defensive and prickly this post sounds? In fact, the one thing I found wrong with Obama's "guns and religion" quote is that he used "bitter" rather than the more accurate "defensive" to describe the people in question.

[Merijeek]

And do you realize how defensive and prickly this post sounds? In fact, the one thing I found wrong with Obama's "guns and religion" quote is that he used "bitter" rather than the more accurate "defensive" to describe the people in question.

And then the economy goes to hell and the folks Obama was talking about start freaking out about Muslims and "Second Amendment Remedies".

They can get pissy about it if they want, but that doesn't change the fact that the man was right.

-Joe

[Frank]

You'd give people the option of investing their social security contributions in the market, just as the 401(k) systems do now.
My 401(k) offers me about a dozen different funds to put my money into. If it weren't that my employer is still offering a match, I would have lost money on it.

Social Security is not designed as a get-rich tool; it's designed as a this-is-what-you-can-depend-on tool. People who don't make enough money to invest, people who aren't smart enough to invest, people who make mistakes investing: all of those people still have some minimal income guaranteed from Social Security.

It's a bottom line income for people whose low-wage working career is over. It's good for them, and it's good for our society.

[Sam Stone]

Rather, there are insufficient good reasons to vote for a party that does the following:

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.


It's even harder to fix the structural problem with Social Security and Medicare when the Democrats just took 500 billion in 'low hanging fruit' savings and applied it to yet another huge entitlement program.

The Democrats also want to continue the Bush tax cuts. Almost all of them want the middle class cuts retained, while some want all the cuts retained. The cuts where the bulk of Democrats differ with the bulk of Republicans amounts to $700 billion over 10 years, which is about 10% of the deficits expected to accrue over that period of time. The deficit problem is not because of the tax cuts for the 'rich'.

Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.


I'd say this is more true of Democrats, who seem to think they can keep expanding programs for the poor and middle class, while the 'rich' pays for it. They can't seem to do the simple math that will show then that the rich simply don't have enough money. Nor can they understand that long before they confiscate a much larger portion of the Rich's wealth, that wealth will start moving elsewhere.

Democrats also seem to be completely oblivious to the burden their policies put on the wealth-creating entities of society. New regulations on business are always seen as an unmitigated good. Higher taxes on corporations are seen as a way to stick it to the rich people. They fail to understand that such taxes just reduce expansion and investment, and in any event are paid by the customers of corporations.

The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman's arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by "conservatives" & will make bad decisions because of that.

Then why is it that the economy foundered in the 1970's? You had stimulus programs, more government regulation, loose fiscal policy, more 'investment' in industry and green technology, government 'partnerships' with business, you name it.

Why did the economy of Britain sputter so badly when it was taken over by the left and the labor unions? It had high marginal tax rates, as strong social safety net, universal healthcare, and all the other trappings of the social democratic welfare state. It became an economic basket case.

How come Canada's economy started to fail when we turned to the left and rapidly grew the size of government? We nationalized major industries, we raised taxes and increased government spending. We cut the size of our military and used the money to fund social programs. The result was that our structural unemployment went up about two or three points higher than the U.S's, our dollar dropped to 70% of the U.S. dollar, and GDP growth began to lag. We also grew a huge debt because we used government money to 'stimulate' the economy.

In the mid-1990's, Canada changed course, started cutting the size of government, reformed welfare, lowered taxes, and made taxes less progressive. We now have lower corporate and capital gains taxes than even Bush's tax cuts created in the U.S. Our dollar is back to par with the U.S, our unemployment rate is two points lower than yours, and we have perhaps the healthiest economy in the G8 now.

You can see this pattern throughout the world. There's plenty of scholarly research to support it. Bigger government and higher taxes means less employment, slower economic growth, and stagnation.

It's the Democrats who refuse to accept the reality of this.

The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.


This is a crazy point, especially since you acknowledged that the Democrats do the same thing. Shall we go down the list? Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama... Only Clinton and Obama had any real star power. None of them were anywhere near the top of the 'heavy hitter' list of the Democratic Party. Obama is the least experienced man to ever hold office in the White House, as far as I can remember.

Both parties have a nominating process that tends to filter out people with actual accomplishment and a track record for doing things. The two-year election cycle puts an emphasis on mediocrity and gaffe-avoidance, as well as the ability to raise money. The primary election season is set up to crazily reward the people of Iowa and other small states - good candidates can be wiped out before people in major populated regions even have a say. It's a crazy system, and it's not the fault of the Republicans.

Once they have a "leader"--President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say--the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it's the opposite of their previous stated opinions.

You mean like how the Democrats just followed their dear leader right off an electoral cliff?

Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos (http://takimag.com/)'s bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, "We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush."

Um, isn't there even more opposition to the wars on the left? So how come Obama's getting his way with no more than muted grumbling?

The answer is that this isn't a 'Republican' problem. It's a partisan problem. When your guy is in power, you keep quiet for fear of the 'other guys' getting back in.

My objections to the GOP are mainly economic, but politics is mainly economic. If the GOP were as open to New-Dealism & tax rises as the Democrats are to social conservatism, it would be another matter.

GOP opposition to tax increases comes from the very sensible belief that deficits are primarily driven by spending. Many Republicans believe that if they allow taxes to increase, the only result will be less pressure to contain spending, and spending will just increase more.

There is plenty of evidence for that around the world. The countries with the highest taxes tend to be the ones with the biggest governments - AND the highest amount of debt. There's no correlation between high taxes and fiscal responsibility. Japan has high taxes and a public debt of 160% of GDP. The high-taxing states in Europe are all running big debts.

On the other hand, Canada now has lower taxes than the U.S. - and lower debt. When we had higher taxes, we had higher debt - and bigger government.

[Robot Arm]

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.


It's even harder to fix the structural problem with Social Security and Medicare when the Democrats just took 500 billion in 'low hanging fruit' savings and applied it to yet another huge entitlement program.Which is still a damn sight more fiscally responsible than Medicare Part D.

The claim was that "the GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning", and your rebuttal is to attack the Democrats for finding $500 billion in savings. If it was "low hanging fruit", why didn't the Republicans find it during their years in the majority? Tax cuts, prescription drugs, off-budget wars; when was the last time Republicans paid for anything?

[Sam Stone]

The Democrats have not realized that 500 billion in savings - they're promising to get it. Let's wait and see, hmm?

And they didn't 'save' anything. IF they cut that money, it will just reduce the cost of the health care plan to a little under 1 trillion over the next decade. If not, it'll be 1.5 trillion, or twice what Bush's tax cuts for the rich cost. So are they fiscally irresponsible too?

The Democrats have controlled the funding of the government since 2007. They now have controlled all three branches of government for two years. Have they put the U.S. on a sustainable long-term plan? Not a chance. They've taken the failings of the Bush administration and doubled down on them. He tried stimulus - the Democrats tried bigger ones. He tried tax cuts for the middle class - the Democrats want to keep his and add their own. He ran up deficits - the Democrats added to them. He at least tried to reform Social Security - the Democrats won't go near it.

The only plan out there right now that can be said to be even remotely close to sustainable is Paul Ryan's roadmap. The Obama administration's 10 year budget plan fixes none of the structural problems facing the U.S., and in fact makes them worse. It also kicks the can for reform of Social Security and Medicare ten years down the road, where it will become a major crisis.

There's no fiscal responsibility in Washington in either party. Which is why the Tea Party exists in the first place.

[Robot Arm]

A. This thread is about the GOP, and again you come out swinging at the Democrats.

B. It's conceivable that it might take more than two years to undo the damage done in the previous six years.

C. Ryan was elected in 1998, where was this roadmap for his first ten years in office?

D. The Tea Party; they're promising to get it. Let's wait and see, hmm?

Republicans are like going to lunch with someone who orders steak, can't pay for it, and then criticizes me for paying for my hamburger.

[The Hamster King]

Since the 1980's the core of the GOP has consisted of three main blocks:


Rich People
Fundamentalists
Libertarians

The rich people (and corporations) are primarily interested in grabbing as much money and power for themselves as possible. They're in favor of low taxes and high government spending, so long as the high government spending goes to them as pork and not to poor people as entitlements. They like regulations that hurt their competitors and hate regulations that hurt their own business interests. They're the smallest block, with the fewest votes, so they can exert almost no electoral influence by themselves. However, their capacity to fund the activities of the other two blocks (and the election campaigns of Republican politicians) gives them power far beyond their numbers.

The fundamentalists aren't trying to work government to their personal advantage like the rich are. In fact, they'll quite happily vote in ways that are counter to their personal interests, if it allows them to make a statement of their values. They like soldiers and flags and other blatant symbols of patriotism. They like Christianity. They don't like gays, immigrants, minorities, or, in fact anything that is unfamiliar or new.

The libertarians are looking for utopia. They approach government as an intellectual exercise and often vote to make an ideological point, rather than to achieve some specific policy result. They want less government and more individual freedom, which often puts them at odds with the fundamentalists.

Since Reagan the general strategy has been for the rich people who run the party to play the fundamentalists and the libertarians for suckers. They whip them up with hot button issues like abortion, gays, welfare, and deficit spending. The fundamentalists provide the enthusiasm, and the libertarian provide the intellectual cover. Then, once the rich are in power they loot the treasury to benefit themselves and their buddies, while only occasionally throwing a bone to the plebs.

(For example, in the early years when Bush was in power and had majorities in both houses, there wasn't any attempt to make abortion illegal, or to balance the budget like the fundamentalists and libertarians want. But there was a big tax cut for the rich and lots and lots of new government contracts.)

The interplay of these three blocks explains a lot of the incoherence of the GOP platform. In some cases their goals are diametrically opposite to each other, but their differences are papered over to help the party as a whole to win elections.

What we're seeing right now with the tea party is the fundamentalist block getting fed up with shouldering the blunt of the responsibility for getting Republicans elected while not reaping any of the benefits. They're strong enough to take over the party. However, they're probably not smart enough (and too principled) to turn that power into general election victories. That would require making compromises to win over the undecided ninnies in the middle ... something that's very hard for a fundamentalist to do.

[foolsguinea]

Hamster King, as someone who grew up in the Religious Right, I pretty much agree with your analysis. I would add that as one gets interested in politics, there are all these magazines (& now websites) that helpfully try to justify different planks of the GOP platform, or what a coalition of conservatives would like it to be. So you may start out as a mildly culturally conservative person with strong religious convictions, & then National Review or one of its poor imitators will try to argue that you should also be for state's rights, against the EPA, suspicious of urban mass transit (OK, I made that one up, but it's weird enough), etc. Since this is in a proper "conservative" publication, that may convince a few people who invest the parties with quasi-religious meaning.

So you end up with all these mildly crankish people trying to convince each other of their specific crankeries, & sometimes succeeding.

One common thread in the different groups Wm F. Buckley put together was that each wanted to repeal something "newfangled" (whether it was 2 years old or 100) that most of society granted was good or at least reasonable. The conservative movement, especially in its more intensely pseudo-religious quarters, has been trying to link disparate versions of, "things were better before X" long enough that they have substantially succeeded.

Would you like to...
reverse Roe v. Wade?
reverse Griswold v. Connecticut?!
abolish the EPA?
gut the SEC?
end Affirmative Action?
make Social Security "opt-out"?
massively defund Medicare?
return prayer to public schools?
abolish the minimum wage?
slash the income & payroll taxes to a level incapable of supporting a modern welfare state?
repeal the Endangered Species Act?
prevent any new taxes from Congress, even to balance the budget?
restore the enforcement of the sodomy law?
outlaw labor unions?
outlaw public employee unions & prevailing wage laws as undesirable constraints on state fiscal policy?
...then the conservative movement/GOP may be the party for you!

But you have to put up with the rest of these cranks.

But to some degree, each movement of crankery succeeds because it's in coalition with other cranks--who have their own obsessions & don't care enough about that one, or just aren't paying attention to that particular one. So we have a party for interest groups ranging from those who want to repeal the income tax to those who just want fathers' rights in abortion law, & each group is if not persuaded of the others' sanity at least willing to use them for votes.

Now, of course, the movement is known for being the party of its own new & stupid ideas. Like turning drug abuse into a felony (now rather established). Or trying to run a welfare state on either very low taxes & lots of borrowing or a national retail tax with no taxation of the finance sector at all.

[BrainGlutton]

. . . suspicious of urban mass transit (OK, I made that one up, but it's weird enough . . .

Actually, there is such thing as organized opposition to urban mass transit (http://notaxfortracks.com/) and it is distinctly conservative (or Libertarian) in tone.

[foolsguinea]

Well, I mentioned it because it's the sort of thing I've seen silly people advocate, & most who do advocate it would seem to tend toward anti-tax political reflexes, suspicion of cities, &/or libertarian/free-market optimism. What'd the Pew Political Typology call that last group? Upbeats? Yeah.

But I qualified it, because I don't remember seeing it given any credence in NR or the like. The party needs some urban support after all.

[elucidator]

Actually, "wither" sounds better and better all the time. Yeah, put me down for "wither".

[foolsguinea]

Last night I remembered an article I read years ago about why many shoppers prefer having a car to using mass transit--they can go from store to store adding packages & storing them in the car. It could have been the Atlantic I suppose, but I suspect it was in National Review--which presumably was playing to a small, "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to run buses," constituency. So there is a right-wing tendency to look for reasons to undermine support for public infrastructure. But it's not a major part of the platform.

[Algher]

Last night I remembered an article I read years ago about why many shoppers prefer having a car to using mass transit--they can go from store to store adding packages & storing them in the car. It could have been the Atlantic I suppose, but I suspect it was in National Review--which presumably was playing to a small, "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to run buses," constituency. So there is a right-wing tendency to look for reasons to undermine support for public infrastructure. But it's not a major part of the platform.

Anti Mass transit from the right comes from a couple of directions. First, it is always directly subsidized and therefore rarely can stand on its own. That makes it an easy target for the fiscal types.

More importantly is the red / blue maps by county. When you see that the Left controls the cities, while the Right controls the suburbs and country - you can see why mass transit has little value to the right. Mass transit works in high density living, which is another way of saying Left controlled areas. Why would someone on the Right increase their own taxes to help someone on the Left get around town? This is especially true if the tax is a gas or other type of vehicle tax. That just does not sell to the average Right voter.

[gonzomax]

Why would anyone not vote Republican. They are the party that took the Clinton surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. They started 2 unfunded wars and gave a huge tax cut to the rich. They are the party of birthers, anti evolution and anti-science. They are the home of O'Donnell,Palin, Paladino, Rube Paul of Kentucky, Angle and a few rich people who wish to buy governmental seats. They brought us Rove , Bush and Cheney. They are fighting to allow the wealthy to get the power they deserve. Who could not identify with that? They have oil running through their veins. They love deregulation because the rich just don't have enough rights and power.

[Robot Arm]

They are the party of birthers, anti evolution and anti-science. They are the home of O'Donnell,Palin, Paladino, Rube Paul of Kentucky, Angle and a few rich people who wish to buy governmental seats.Why abandon the big tent approach, it's been working for them so far.

[Digital Stimulus]

Well, I mentioned it because it's the sort of thing I've seen silly people advocate, & most who do advocate it would seem to tend toward anti-tax political reflexes, suspicion of cities, &/or libertarian/free-market optimism...
I'd never heard anti-mass transit squawks prior to this thread. Lo and behold! This morning I came across: Why Leftists Want to Pull You All on Mass Transit (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/08/steven-crowder-new-york-public-transit-government/). Jeez, what a douche. I just can't get my head around this:
"Oh I just don’t think I could live without the subway system, it’s so convenient. I can get anywhere I need to go in the city in a flash." Right. Or –and follow me on this here– I could live anywhere else in the country, take 3 steps out my front door, get into my car, and drive anywhere on the continent. How’s that for convenience?
Right. Or –and follow me on this here– I might think NYC is the greatest city in the world, wouldn't want to live anywhere else, and realize that I'd have to be an imbecile to think that a ~22 mile island could support any significant number of its 1.5M residents owning and using cars.

In this case: imbecile, "Fox News contributor", same difference.

[elucidator]

Dig, you goof, that's conservative humor there! OK, its not Dennis Miller or Mallard Fillmore, but I'm sure the intent is satirical. Pretty sure. Kinda.

[BrainGlutton]

That dude is not only an idiot -- "It’s no secret that the environmental movement is ultimately designed to create new inroads into increased government control." -- he's a bad writer: "By the same token, big-city leftist elite’s disdain for middle America can also be explained by their lack of ability to corral them into metropolitan areas where they can be weaned onto a reliance of the government." Think about what the word "wean" means in reference to what you're trying to say here, Mr. Crowder.

[Digital Stimulus]

Dig, you goof, that's conservative humor there! OK, its not Dennis Miller or Mallard Fillmore, but I'm sure the intent is satirical. Pretty sure. Kinda.
Sadly for Fox's "comedian" author, Mallard Fillmore is not only funnier, but smarter too.

I can't believe I just praised Mallard Fillmore with no sarcasm intended.

[elucidator]

Not to worry, its merely comparative. Measles is "better" than smallpox. A snapping turtle makes a better pet than a black mamba.

[Measure for Measure]

There's no fiscal responsibility in Washington in either party. Which is why the Tea Party exists in the first place. Dream on. Democratic administrations are consistently more fiscally responsible that Republican administration and have been for 40 years. (LBJ, Eisenhower: Not the case!)

George Bush delivered the worst recession since WWII. Responsible macroeconomists, including but not limited to Mark Zandi of Moody's aknowledged the need for short run stimulus if we were to avoid a 2nd depression. This is not controversial.

Over the long run, the federal budget is unmanageable without health care reform. The Democrats delivered that. It's a first step, but a very important one. It has taken 100 years. Raising top rates to 39.6% would be a significant step towards long-run fiscal responsibility, without blowing apart the economy. Reversing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts on the middle class will be more difficult, but you have to start somewhere. One possible plan might involve raising sin and emission taxes (or equivalently auctioning off rights to pollute). This would hit the middle class, but permit taxes on labor and savings to be kept where they are.

The Republican plan, in contrast, is to extend the Bush tax cuts forever -- their stance on the deficit is a joke: they have no implicit or explicit plan -- and the Tea Partiers are basically full of it. Let's face it, there was not a peep from them during the Bush years.


I am proud to be a Democrat: this 111th congress is the most productive in 2 generations. Republicans will indeed be victorious this election cycle, though they deserve not one vote.

I hand the mike to Brad DeLong:
To understand the Republican Party today, you have to recognize that right now it is bespelled by three curses:

The curse of Ronald Reagan: it believes that over the long haul somehow America can tax like Calvin Coolidge and spend like Lyndon Johnson and everything will come out fine because it is morning in America.


The curse of Richard Nixon: it believes that the purpose of politics is to win high-paid jobs with no heavy lifting involved and to humiliate your political adversaries, rather than to make a better country and a better world, and so anything goes.


The curse of Barry Goldwater: it believes that the big threat to liberty comes from government attempts to enhance equality of opportunity, and so the Republican Party must abandon its historic commitment to equality of opportunity.

The Republican Party may never again have a legitimate place in American civil life. But if it does, it will only be because brave men and women working within it lift these three curses. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/03/is-michael-steele-the-best-possible-chairman-for-the-republican-national-committee.html

Ironically, the above 3 Presidents are not entirely at fault. Nixon was a serious guy, and far more devoted to good government than George Bush. Goldwater was personally not a racist. And Reagan raised taxes multiple times. No: it was what modern conservatives drew from these Presidents that makes them craven. And yet it is during the darkest times that responsible traditional conservatives can shine their true character. Examples of such patriots are few and far between but some of them can be found at Capitals Gains and Games (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/), The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/) and on occasion the Straight Dope Message Board.

[Measure for Measure]

The only plan out there right now that can be said to be even remotely close to sustainable is Paul Ryan's roadmap. Are you aware that the CBO did the CBO did not score the revenue of Ryan's plan (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0806_defending_ryan_gayer.aspx)? Are you aware that his plan leads to "a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario?" Sure, it cuts spending. But it also loads in more budget busting tax cuts than you can shake a stick at. A plan that increases existing deficits cannot be characterized as "sustainable".

Nice chart here: there's a huge difference between what Ryan claims and what serious analysts say it will do, "So that’s the Ryan Ripoff in a nutshell—much lower taxes for the rich, higher taxes for ninety percent of Americans, and no balanced budget. All in the name of balancing the budget!" http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/paul-ryans-budget-doesnt-balance-the-budget/

[Merijeek]

The only plan out there right now that can be said to be even remotely close to sustainable is Paul Ryan's roadmap. Are you aware that the CBO did the CBO did not score the revenue of Ryan's plan (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0806_defending_ryan_gayer.aspx)? Are you aware that his plan leads to "a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario?" Sure, it cuts spending. But it also loads in more budget busting tax cuts than you can shake a stick at. A plan that increases existing deficits cannot be characterized as "sustainable".

You are aware, of course, that tax cuts are magic and that they fix everything, right?

-Joe

[foolsguinea]

Please. Grover Norquist & his anti-tax fanatics have been saying for a generation that they want government to wither on the vine, they want to "starve the beast." The deficits are there to keep the federal government weak & servile, so non-state institutions of power can wield real control.

And I either get treated like a conspiracy theorist when I believe they mean what they say; or I get mocked by people who want those non-state institutions to be stronger than the "evil oppressive" government, as if I'm the sucker &/or traitor.

I'm not kidding when I say the GOP should be outlawed on the same principle that outlawed the Fascisti in Italy. We just haven't hit the point it's clear to most people yet.

[BrainGlutton]

Please. Grover Norquist & his anti-tax fanatics have been saying for a generation that they want government to wither on the vine, they want to "starve the beast." The deficits are there to keep the federal government weak & servile, so non-state institutions of power can wield real control.

And I either get treated like a conspiracy theorist when I believe they mean what they say; or I get mocked by people who want those non-state institutions to be stronger than the "evil oppressive" government, as if I'm the sucker &/or traitor.

I'm not kidding when I say the GOP should be outlawed on the same principle that outlawed the Fascisti in Italy. We just haven't hit the point it's clear to most people yet.

It's a "conspiracy theory" only in that you're attributing too much power to Norquist, etc. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity -- or, in this case, to a combination of necessity and cowardice. The deficits exist because too many Congresscritters are afraid to raise taxes, and too many federal programs are too visibly important to be drastically cut.

[elucidator]

Newt and others claim to want to cut the food stamp program. We are fortunate that the wise and compassionate men at Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland stand firm in their open-handed generosity.

[Measure for Measure]

Oh sure, Norquist wanted to Starve the Beast (STB). In fact, he was pretty explicit about it. And there's no shortage of high-profile Republicans who have espoused that theory at one time or another. The problem, as I see it, is that nobody every made the spending cuts explicit, so that the Republicans in effect had a policy of Party Now and worry about complicated specifics later.

Bruce Bartlett, one of the architects of the original Kemp Roth tax cuts during the 1970s-1980s, is an honest conservative. He has renounced STB, though he believes it to have originally been a plausible hypothesis. Unlike most modern conservatives though, he respects facts and evidence: "...ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits." In this link (http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett_print.html) he presents a history of Starve the Beast. Longer history available here: http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1516/starving-beast (Look for the link to the paper.)

To this day, STB remains a matter of orthodoxy in Republican circles; overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to matter.