I’m surprised at the amount of “this is by design” talk coming from people who reject the hypothesis that human beings were made by design (something I reject as well, for the record). This shit isn’t “by design”; it’s emergent and evolutionary. It’s unintended consequences.
Seriously, can anyone provide proof that Richard Nixon, for example, was working on a 40 year plan to radicalize the Republican Party of the United States? Ronald Reagan didn’t want this, and none of the Bushes wanted this.
There’s no “master plan” dating back to Agnew, and such discussion is as ludicrous as the beliefs of Qanon and their ilk.
Who in this thread has claimed that the current state of the Republican Party is “by design” or the result of a “master plan”?
Just because Republicans in the last few decades have been consistently embracing an ideology that has led to a bunch of bad outcomes doesn’t mean that all the promoters of that ideology necessarily predicted or desired those outcomes. “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” does not refer to a cunning long-term strategy for getting more whirlwinds.
Yes, the current massive anti-rationality of the Republican Party is largely unintended consequences. But the point of the criticisms in this thread is that it’s unintended consequences of particular Republican bad and oppressive ideas that they have been promoting for decades.
By the standards of a Massachusetts Republican, she’s far-right. But by Wyoming standards, she’s moderate. Now that she’s effectively out of Wyoming politics, I’d expect her to talk more as a moderate by national standards. This isn’t meant to say she lacks principles. I just think that even the best politician has to balance principles with a bit of pandering to prevailing local opinion.
I think he has moved to the right. Evidence: He uses the word left as an insult more often than in the past.
Joe Walsh, one of those who tried to primary Trump back then, is the closest IMHO to a “moderate” or “sane” Republican. He has apologised for the rhetoric he used to indulge in (including claiming Obama was Muslim) and acknowledged that he was part of the reason why Trump won the presidency.
Walsh had no pathway to victory here. It was impossible. The party closed ranks. Because the “crazies” are in charge.
And the “crazies” are in a stronger position now than they were then.
The only real opportunity for the centrist GOP to “reclaim their party” was before the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus took ascendency. It’s much too late for that now.
This could get interesting, if DeSantis decides to run and Trump’s cronies try to cancel the primaries again (assuming Orange Julius Caesar is not in jail or even alive at this point). I don’t see DeSantis rolling over so easily, and he’s got a significant backing from Republicans, even former Trumpists, who see him as the future.
I did not mean to suggest he was. I was responding to @Banquet_Bear’s post about the canceled primaries. Trump vs. DeSantis might be better than Freddie vs. Jason.
Last week, Paladino said that Merrick Garland should be executed for the Trump search. But then he pulled back and said he was just being “facetious”.
That Carl; always with a joke.
But seriously, this is what is wrong with the Republican party. Paladino is borderline insane. But the Republican party isn’t denouncing him and saying he doesn’t represent them. They apparently view him as an acceptable Republican. Elise Stefanik and others have endorsed him.
I don’t think anyone has said it was by design. However I have said that it was the logical end point of the path that was embarked upon decades ago. Each step towards darkness led to the next step towards darkness. At this point there is no turning back.
When was the first step taken? That might be debatable. Was it McCarthy? Was it Goldwater? It was certainly no later than Nixon.
Really, their only hope is to wait it out as the GQP goes down in flames and the Democrats fission into progressive and centrist wings and then to insinuate themselves into the centrist wing and nudge it rightward to create a new loyal-opposition conservative party.
Yeah this is one of the things with the US “system”: it’s as if it were mandated that the competition for office HAS to be between a Republican and Democratic parties and the various actual ideological alignments – populists, progressives, conservatives, nationalists, liberals, whatever – have to figure out how to accommodate themselves in one of those and if possible seek to take it over, and then confront the “established” members of that party with “well, you don’t like us, but what are you going to do about that? vote for THEM? sit at home and let THEM win? if you split it’s just throwing the election to THEM”.
That of course is the problem with the idea to “create a new loyal-opposition conservative party”. Because to succeed it would have to be a new competitive-for-office conservative party that leaves the MAQAs out there with the Freedom Party.
Isn’t that the way it is? I was under the impression, please correct me if I’m wrong, that ballot access laws have been drawn by Republicans and Democrats to always favour Republicans and Democrats? In some states, don’t the ballot access laws actually name the Republican party and the Democratic party and put them on the ballot?
Here’s a recent article about how restrictive the New York state ballot access laws are:
While ballot access laws are a factor, the real issue is the winner-take-all (first-past-the-post) system, which makes it essentially pointless to vote for a third party candidate. Unless there is some form of proportional representation (or ranked-choice, etc.), a third-party vote is at best a wasted vote. At worst, it amounts to a vote for the greater of two evils. Voting for one of the two major parties at least let’s you vote for the lesser of two evils.
Except that’s not the case in other countries with FPTP: Canada, the UK and India all have more than two parties.
I’ve had orange MPs / MLAs, Blue ones, and Red ones. Can’t remember if I had a light Blue in Quebec. Came very close to having a Green one a while ago.
There’s currently five different parties in our House of Commons, all elected FPTP.
For a taste of just how difficult it is for an alternative party to get on the ballot, never mind persuading people to vote for it, peruse what COFOE – the Coalition for Free and Open Elections – has to say. The coalition is nine alternative parties that have little in common other than being denied a ballot presence.
In the United States, as opposed to the other countries, there is a powerful elected President. They are not often beholden to even their own party, much less any party in any putative coalition.
Let’s pretend America had 4 viable parties, which usually got 40%, 35%, 15%, and 10% of the popular vote. Let’s also, counterfactually, stipulate that they also control a proportionate number of Senators and Representatives. (Due to FPTP, the smaller parties would usually hold fewer seats except if their votes are geographically concentrated.*)
In that case, the party that won only 40% of seats in Congress would need to go into a coalition in congress in order to elect Congressional leadership, or at least make sure the other parties don’t form a coalition against them. But they would most likely win the Presidency. And their President would pursue the policies of their own party, including such executive decisions as they may make in running the government. The smaller party would only have input in the Congressional agenda.
*This also may explain the viability of multiple parties in Canada and Britain, since while regional feelings can be strong in America, they don’t feel like they are of separate nationality and so would most likely not vote as strongly for regional parties even in the case of a weak executive. Any popular smaller party in America would, and has, failed to win any representation despite winning millions of votes across the country, even though they would produce a winner if concentrated in one district.