So far the approach I’ve seen locally is for all the neo-cons to put on the sheep’s clothing and “The Republican party has been hijacked by Bush and the crazy neo-cons. Now, we small government conservatives are going to take back our party! You can trust us!” Pay no attention to our lockstep voting pattern for the past eight years.
Holy crap, I haven’t seen local Republicans so concerned with government spending since…well…1999 unsurprisingly.
Well, looks like once again, we have a “fiscal moderate” (Goldwater Republican in a Democrat suit) in the White House. In order to differentiate themselves as the party of the Right, the GOP have to be even further to the right economically as well as play the religion card, over & over.
I foresee more race-baiting, chest-beating about “culture,” & insistence that the poor are not properly the gov’t’s problem, ad nauseum.
What there’s not going to be is a serious consideration of what’s good for the country. Politicians as a rule are careerists sucking up to their fellows, left or right.
I should have just voted for Kucinich in the primary. He would have left a lot of room for the GOP to move left & still be “right.”
I can’t speak for the Republicans, but as an employee of the DNC this summer and as an activist for left-wing (ie left of the Party) interests before and since, I’ve seen first-hand how the Democratic Party swiftly responds to its base’s changing interests. That’s why its base keeps growing, as opposed to the Republicans’ base, which seems to be shrinking. Civil liberty wonks like myself asked the Democratic Party to give us a candidate who would immediately shut down Guantanamo and totally overhaul the American interrogation system, and we got one who started the ball rolling in his first 48 hours in office. Those of us in the LGBT spectrum wanted a candidate dedicated to our rights, and we got one. We banged on the prison bars and loudly demanded that the Iraq war end, and the Party listened.
It may traditionally be true that both parties just wait for the pendulum to swing back their way, but today’s Democratic Party has its ear to the ground.
Huckabee scares me, by the way. He has a way of sounding reasonable while actually holding a far-right agenda. His routing on the Daily Show in the wake of Prop 8’s passing should knock him down a couple pegs with lefties, but he’s such a damn charming guy that he can really do anything.
That’s a bit insulting to those of us who have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into an American election. Just because our democracy is a bit older than many of the European ones and we don’t have as new and sophisticated a voting system, doesn’t mean that it’s all random luck.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
You’ve misinterpreted what I said (although my phrasing didn’t help, sorry) - I didn’t mean it was pure luck who got in, because that’s demonstrably not true. My point is that you have two choices, and there are times when your choices seem like “bad” and “less bad”. Also having two parties means you will necessarily have a large number of positions within a fairly broad church, because all political positions have to go into one camp or the other. It also has the issue of polarising everything, either this is what Democrats do, or that is what Republicans do, so pretty much every action and view is partisan because there’s no other place for the view to go.
I’m not saying other democracies are perfect, but I think the ability to pick a party that actually reflects your view is far better than voting for someone who you mostly agree with but disagree with fundamentally on some points. In the UK we have a relatively similar problem with New Labour and the Conservatives trying to see who can move further to the right whilst still being considered a centrist party, and like in the US they are realistically the only parties who will form a majority government. But within Parliament because there are so many other parties with smaller numbers of seats you have a broader spectrum of political positions and views. Being for renewable energy, for example, can therefore be a policy held by several parties without it being a right/left (or even worse them/us) issue.
I’m also a tad amused by Vox’s statements about the immutability of your system as if it were totally impossible to reform (which of course it isn’t, this is a system of government we’re talking about here, not the laws of physics). That in itself is not a healthy sign in a political system, and the answer “it’s always been this way and that’s that” is not a good one when the question “why don’t we change our system to make it better?” is asked. I appreciate your system is more rigidly defined within your various instruments of government, but the idea it will be this way until either the US ceases to exist or the earth falls into the sun (whichever comes first) I find very strange.
I agree that the GOP will be easily beaten in 2012 and that someone like Huckabee is a likely candidate but I don’t think he would necessarily be terrible. I find some of his views fairly nutty but his tone and manner are excellent and he managers to sell social conservative ideas without scaring voters. He has a fairly solid record as a governor and he is someone who speaks about middle class economic concerns in a believable way. I think his candidacy could be a stepping stone to a rejuvenated GOP. Plus if he is given a shot it would make social conservatives relatively happy and perhaps allow a moderate in 2016 which is the year which really matters.
As for Palin I agree her time is up but a book might be a smart move as far as making money is concerned. There are a lot of dittoheads out there who still worship her. The timing is a delicate matter though. The current economy isn’t a good time for selling books and she might want to wait till 2011 while announcing a possible run. However by then she could be a complete non-entity. May be better to grab what money she can now; at least she will be able to pay for her own clothes.
There already are more than two parties. Problem is, the powers-that-be survive on the two-party system. That way, they keep the voters divided with party loyalty, while steering the country in the desired path. Evidence of this can be seen in the Bush administration. If you honestly scrutinize the Bush administration, you will find that much of the policy was traditionally of the political left.
And if a candidate that doesn’t subscibe to the policies of the powers-that-be rises in popularity with the voters, then an effort will be put forth to undermine that candidate.
We saw evicence of this during this past campaign season, when there was one candidate that had broken away from the mold and had offered Americans a true alternative. Texas Congressman Ron Paul distinguished himself from the rest of the candidates in that he views the Constitution as the government’s ultimate authority and gives his allegiance to America, not to foreign interests.
It was obvious that a America First platform is unacceptable to the powers-that-be.
Because Ron Paul’s message was striking a resonate chord with Americans of all political stripes, a concerted effort to downplay, discredit, and even smear the congressman was undertaken by the hierarchy of both political parties and the establishment media, beginning with the first debate between the Republican candidates.
In the now infamous exchange with the media’s then annointed frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani, Congressman Ron Paul suggested that the interventionist foreign policy that has been undertaken by the government for the better part of the past century, may have contributed to the terrorist attacks of 9-11.
To which Giuliani responded:
*
“That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th,” *
Yeah, you can bet that he’s heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th, starting and ending with the official explaination - that we were attacked by those who hate our freedoms and our democracy.
But wait, the absurdity didn’t stop there.
Now that it has become evident that the impending mushroom cloud that would have resulted from Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was nothing more than a ruse on the American people to gull them into supporting a globalist designed war on Iraq, the war has now morphed into a humanitarian mission designed to establish freedom and democracy within a country populated by those who supposedly hate freedom and democracy.
Now, that’s absurd.
See what scares me is that for the most part what was just said about Huckabee, could have been said about Bush in 1999 or so. Remember compassionate conservatism? He sounded like a conservative, but a reasonable one. That went well.
As to whether or not the Republicans are re-defining themselves, I don’t think they even acknowledge the need to change. This letter to the local paper seems to be indicative of how many Republicans simply do not get it. Never once did I hope Bush would fail, but so many Republicans want Obama to fail in every way.
Really? What evidence leads you to *that *conclusion? :dubious:
illuminatiprimus, you need to better understand the structural differences between the tripartite US system and a parliamentary one. Having 2 parties is an almost-inevitable result of not permitting parties to have official significance in the structure of our government. In fact, other than in the fracturing of the system right before the Civil War, we’ve always had 2 significant parties, no matter the issues of the day. Third parties arise only to promote a specific policy agenda item that neither of the majors have been addressing, and if they get anywhere with it, that item will be co-opted by a party that can actually act upon it.
What makes you think I don’t? It’s just fairly difficult to discuss a political system with people who are effectively putting their hands over their ears and saying “la la la our system is fine la la la two choices are all we need la la la”.
My input clearly isn’t helping here so I’ll leave it to people who know better than me.
“The problem isn’t that we dug ourselves into a hole-the problem is that we just didn’t dig deep enough!”
FWIW- I think a lot of ambitious Republican types are waiting in the weeds for a chance to play the only card they have available right now: Keeping Your Family Safe. Should another major terrorist attack, they’ll make the case (again) that only the Republican Party can protect America.
Now, I’d like to think that most Republicans aren’t wishing for a repeat of Sept. 11 so they can regain power. On the other hand, a naked opportunist with an unquenchable lust for power like U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who will Suge Knight his way into higher office by any means necessary, well…
Speaking as a guy from a country with more than one party, I don’t see how our system is better, to be honest. Yes, we have more choices, but the grim fact is that we don’t feel as if our choices are any better - if I had a nickel for every Canadian I’ve heard say “Wow, I wish we had someone like Barack Obama,” I wouldn’t have to work anymore. The two larger parties are far less discernible from each other than the Republicans and Democrats are - you’d have trouble explaining, in any objective way, how they’re substantially different in practice.
It’s nice to have more choice but it has a lot of potential drawbacks, too. Our parties are much more regionalized, for one thing; while there’s some structural reasons for this, it’s also because in a 3-parties-or-more system you can concentrate your efforts even more than is the case in the USA and still win enough seats. We seem to spread out political talent more thinly. And the choices offered by the various parties are in many cases hard to discern.
So you can say that an advantage to multiparty systems is that you can pick a party that reflects your view, but I can’t, because Canada has no such party. My personal views aren’t all that off the wall, but we don’t have a party for them.
**The main purpose and aim of a political party is to win elections. ** Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Labour, Likud, Green Party, Christian Democrat or whatever they call their parties in Europe - their main goal, once they’re past fringe party status and often before, is to win votes. Their interests NEVER mesh with the voters’ interests because they do not want, and never want, the same thing. The voter wants government policies A, B amd C; the party wants votes. Practically speaking, it’s a business arrangement; Politician gives Voter promises or actions in exchange for votes. Adding more politicians to the mix might give you more choice, but then again, it might not. There are lots of corner stores in the city I live in but they all sell the same junk.
How about we let six months of the Obama presidency to see what happens.
When Bush was elected no-one could’ve predicted that an event like 9/11 happened and ended defining how his administration was viewed.
The GOP now has to play the cards dealt by the Democrats, in the same way as they played the cards Bush dealt in order to win. One thing they are waiting for is for a impasse within the Dems, a veto, something that gives them traction.
Actually, there is a very important purpose for the third parties that pop up now and again: They show that there is a significant factor of the population one of the two main parties is not serving. Generally, one of the two main parties then subsumes some of the platform of the third. See: Green Party / America First party.
In truth, subsets of the main parties often can pop up and act like third parties in this manner. Ron Paul was one… and Barack Obama is the other. Both offered something the main party wasn’t giving. Barack won, and is trying to create a new mainstream. It might be working. Ron Paul didn’t win, and may split off the Republican party, like Teddy Roosevelt did.
Well I don’t want Huckabee to be President either and I don’t there is much possibility of him winning. My point is that I don’t think he would be a terrible candidate like, say, Palin. He has the potential to develop a new Republican brand particularly on economic issues that could serve the party well in 2012.
One player we need to watch closely is Petraeus. I could easily see him becoming a leading contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. He would probably be a formidable candidate.
No, it’s more like a boxing match. Or a duel.
Or the FINAL SHOWDOWN between the Power Rangers & the evil overlord. Hoowah!
It’s hard to give that up.
It’s stupid as all hell, but it’s hard to give up.
After Obama dies.
Yes, I said DIES. As in, if Barry Obama lives a long life, GOP obstruction will survive so long as he’s around to advise the Dems on how to give away the farm to the GOP. If he’s assassinated, then his knee-jerk appeasement reflex & right-wing economics will be replaced by the new mood of the party–a mood informed by the myth of who people wish he were.
(Yes, I voted for him. He seemed like he could accomplish more the left in the primaries, & I’ll take Dem patronage over GOP patronage. No, I don’t want him to die. I want him to stop being a putz.)
The guy has been President for four days, has not had time to make any economic moves at all, and you’re already accusing him of giving in to the GOP and you’re saying things won’t get better until he dies. Perhaps the problem is that you’re just a touch cynical.
OK, this inspires me to be really serious.
I like the deficit-hawk anti-pork Republicans. Flake, Coburn, Grassley–they’re the kind of guys I grew up admiring. Problem is, the model doesn’t work. The populace actually want. even expect, the government to do things. Therefore, balanced budgets require tax increases.
The model they are committed to doesn’t work.
This is aside from my harebrained economic hypotheses about redistribution of wealth through the treasury being better for a market economy than selling capital through a banking network. This is not a matter of right-wing or left-wing theory, but simple math.
This is aside from the fact that I’m tired of my country trying to build military bases everywhere in the world AND doing all the new weapons tech research so others can reverse engineer it–& yet military pork is beloved of both parties & sold as shoring up national defense. You want to be the world’s armory? Fine, then pay for it.
This is even aside from the fact that most GOP politicians are not really deficit hawks; they want the pork AND the tax cuts. The “good” Republicans can’t actually get them to cut spending enough, even where the people might accept it.
It’s really very simple. Reagan was wrong.
I don’t mean morally wrong, I mean factually wrong, strategically foolish, & doomed to failure. You cannot,* cannot, cannot* cut taxes as he did, raise spending the way he did, & eliminate the deficit.
I understand the Laffer Curve. It gives a peak of possible income tax receipts with taxes somewhere at 40%-60% of GDP. But Reaganites want to tax less & less as a way of bribing votes & then invoke Laffer where he himself would tell them they’re wrong. Or, like Cheney, they just don’t care. If the government’s books are out of whack, they’ll just lose some elections & make it the Democrats’ problem.
And that’s the disturbing reality, at least on the state level:
The mean ol’ Democrats will have to raise taxes & cut spending & be the bad guys. The GOP will say, remember the good old days, when we gave everyone candy? And they’ll come back. To break the bank again.
Some people think that if a party’s plan is appealing to the people, they’ll learn horse sense, & get better. But it’s also possible for a party to get worse–more irresponsible, crazier, bloodier-minded, more destructive–on their way to popular acclaim. Because what sells isn’t always the responsible plan.
A touch?** A touch?** I walk through Athens in the daylight with a lantern–and a cattle prod.
I’m deeply cynical, thank you very much.