Of course, the other thing that the Republicans have done…really the true brilliance of their strategy…is that they have managed to get most of the votes from the following two groups of people:
(1) Libertarians / free-marketers + corporate types who like their economic policies and are willing to tolerate their rhetoric and limited policy actions in regards to the religious Right. [Although even here there is some tension between the corporate crony types and the libertarians who are more unhappy with corporate welfare.] Many people on this board are great examples of this.
(2) Religious right, who respond to the moral values issues (as well as other things like guns) and the nebulous appeals to patriotism and “strength”. (There are also some underlying appeals to racial divisiveness, especially in the South.) They are motivated to vote for the Republicans despite the fact that they do not generally agree with the Republicans on economic issues. (And, to some extent, they are appeased here by the tax cuts…even if such tax cutting without cutting popular programs is not long-term sustainable.)
How do you conclude that wanting to weaken a policy is *accepting * it, rather than just a realistic and achievable step in repealing it? The Bush proposal to eliminate the very guarantees that Social Security is based upon cannot be reasonably called “acceptance” of it.
The firebrands *are * out there, all right, but more behind the scenes, and with multisyllabic rhetoric. Grover Norquist’s influence on his close friend Cheney is an example of how it works now, not Father Coughlin-type radio rants to a public that has little say anyway.
And that’s where I’d say the shift really lies - the increasing dependence by elected public servants on the sheer amounts of money required to run a campaign today has made the big-money people far more influential compared to the average voter, who in turn has been increasingly alienated as his own views have had decreasing effect. Both major parties have been forced to sell out, the GOP more enthusiastically but what’s the diff, and the major opinionmakers in the media have also been tamed by the corporations who control them now. I agree that the country really hasn’t shifted, but that control of the institutions certainly has.
Not really. Even if I accept the premise that a large number of Republcans secretly want to eliminate SS, how is that substantively different than the Democrats’ position on, say, the death penalty? Isn’t it just as reasonable to say that they also “secrety” want to eliminate it, even if they don’t publically call for its elimination?
But I don’t accept that premise. Most Republicans do not “secretly” want to eliminate SS. It is accepted as a fact of life now, something that only the fringe candidates talk about eliminating. And Bush is NOT advocating the elimination of the “very guarantee that SS is based upon”, no matter how much you claim that he is.
Yes, it is. Your point? Note that I already mentioned that there are indeed Republicans who do want to “drown it in the bathtub”, and there are many persons of all persuasions who oppose the death penalty for reasons either moral or practical or both.
No, only the ones actually making policy are working toward that goal, and you’re dismissing “the fringe” too casually anyway. The extremists are in control. At any rate, how is what they’re proposing distinguishable from a partial elimination in effect?
That would most certainly be the effect of shifting funding out of the government and into the stock market, to whatever extent it occurs. Is the market going to guarantee a damn thing? Of course not. Only an institution that can absolutely ensure its own continuity and absolutely ensure its own revenue can, and the only such institution around is the government. Tell us more, O wise one, about what he really is advocating, since you have such faith. Note in passing, btw, that he hasn’t identified any new funding method to pay for this so-called “plan”, whatever it is.
Bush may not be saying that, and he may not even understand it, but that only illustrates another tactic that the modern GOP has found effective - telling evasions, omissions, and outright lies in such a way as to make those who want to believe it believe it.
Come on, guys. How can you compare a radio broadcast that’s pretty much brand new with one as old as Rush’s. Give it a few years at least before pronouncing a verdict.
As for the other side of this argument…
BFD if Franken does well in NYC-- he’s preachin’ to the choir. When he has a national voice, he’ll matter. Maybe he will, in time. But right now, he’s fringe.
What is it with these guys? They speak in support of the Established Order, the Party of bankers, businessmen, Babbits and Rotarians, yet try to paint themselves as boldy acting out at dreadful risk of…what, exactly? What fearsome power do they defy? Al Franken? How much courage does it take to align yourself with those who firmly grasp the levers of power? Its like marching into a Policeman’s Ball and defiantly declaiming in defense of Law and Order.
Yeah, but the world itself has shifted to the left. Fifty years ago or more, we were pretty much in step with the rest of the Western world. When Europe was seeing facism, our biggest inner threat was from socialists. We had many workers’ rights, strong unions, relatively few colonial aspirations, relaxed or at least eccentric religious values and tolerated a fair amount of diversity compared to other countries like us. Time marches on and people become more open minded, rights get won, and people get more liberal. But it happened a lot more everywhere else than America. Our definition of a flaming liberal would make a European laugh. Only in America would people like Al Franken and Michael Moore be considered lunatic finge. Our “center” is waaaaay to the right.