Hey, we’ve had some bipartisan bills lately. Like the Senate bill that said we weren’t going to hand over our citizens to the KGB, for instance. So we’ve got that going for us.
But I thought the argument was that the democrats used to hold good positions that the republicans now have, which would make the republicans now are the good party.
You’re successfully arguing for the exact opposite - that the republicans used to not suck, but now they do. Reaching back 40+ years isn’t just cheating, it’s arguing the other point!
The parties used to be much more similar, because both had liberal, centrist and conservative wings. Starting in the late 70s/early 80s, that changed. Conservatives drifted into the Republican party and liberals drifted into the Democratic party. Starting in the 2000s, centrists also drifted into the Democratic party, as the Republican party became captured by nutcases and reality-deniers. We’ve more or less completed that exchange now, and the GOP has become a nationwide insane asylum.
Before a shift to white-nationalism the Republican party and the Democrats were mostly separated by wedge issues and economic policy.
Watch this debate between George H. W. Bush And Ronald Reagan
Sadly pandering to the KKK and bigots due the Southern Strategy shifted the public message.
But remember it was Bill Clinton that signed DOMA, as a social progressive both parties were pretty much indistinguishable until recently to me outside of those wedge issues and economics.
I made no such argument. You said that only racism had flipped sides. I pointed out that that was not the case, simply because that’s not the case and it’s expected to fight ignorance here. I had no larger point, and said nothing positive nor negative about either party platform. On average, both party platforms are deeply flawed and unrealistic. Today, the Democratic party’s is less so. But back in the day, most journalists and lawyers were Republican and reality was biased to the right. That’s because the cities were Republican and cities have more better educated and intelligent people than the countryside. Whoever owns the cities will, on average, have the smarter party platform.
For the record, this little subconverstation was triggered by this post, which includes this memorable statement:
Suffice to say I found that statement so outrageous that I’ve been trying to see into the mind of its author ever since (with no regard for my own mental wellbeing, it seems).
Since he’s discussing himself, I think we have to assume that he’s telling the truth.
Oh, I don’t doubt it, but a sordid part of me is deeply curious about how he came to those conclusions. He spoke of historical changes in the positions of the parties (excuse me, the ‘leanings’), and I wanna know which shifts he thinks has happened to make the right move from ‘wrong’ to ‘benign’.
(The rational part of me is insisting that the most plausible explanation is that he doesn’t know his left from his right, but that can’t be it.)
For the record I was also rather bewildered by the statement you quote. I was curious … but not curious enough to try to see into its author’s mind — my pending To-Do list is already rather long.
Brad DeLong: [INDENT]This is your reminder:
180.8 million people are represented by the 49 senators who caucus with the Democrats.
141.7 million people are represented by the 52/51 senators who caucus with the Republicans.
65.9 million people voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine to be their president and vice president
63.0 million people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence to be their president and vice president. [/INDENT]
What we have is asymmetric polarization in the words of Ornstein and Mann. One of the 2 parties has gone off the rails: the GOP has opted for plutocratic white nationalism.