From this Salon piece by Michael Lind, which is mainly about why Romney putting Paul Ryan on the ticket ain’t no big deal:
A rare voice of reason himself, that Lind (a former National Review editor, BTW). This is a dreary and rather depressing analysis, but a hard and realistic one. This can’t be repeated often enough, to counter the insane “Obamunism” and suchlike memes the frothing-right has been propagating these past four years. Tell your friends.
In the end the election is between faith-based and reality-based policies. Whether it’s the thought that the Iraqis will greet us as victors and the war will pay for itself, cutting taxes will reduce the deficit, forcibly raped women can’t get pregnant, or that Jesus is about to come back for judgement day, we have a party that no longer has any connection at all to, or respect for, reality. As such, I think we are in new territory.
What ever Obama does in his next term, whether I agree with him or not, I’m pretty sure that the decisions will be based on a sober reading of the facts.
Watching the election from Canada it certainly seems less a race between left and right, as much as it seems to be sane vs. not as much so.
Is the second conjunct there supposed to follow from the second, because I am pretty sure it doesn’t. Obama may be an “Eisenhower Democrat”, but present day Republicans are not Eisenhower Republicans by any stretch, they are far, far to his right.
Nm
Only if you see it as a problem. I liked Eisenhower and I’ve voted for people like Clinton and Obama because they were “Eisenhower Democrats”. If Obama actually was a left-wing socialist, I’d probably be voting for Romney instead.
Out of interest, would you vote for John MacGovern above Bernie Sanders Little Nemo?
What about a Labour party MP rather than a Conservative in England, or the Progress/Conservative Party above the Labour Party in Sweden?
From a European perspective, it seems like a moderately right wing politician running against another moderately right wing politician, with one of the politicians having support from the extreme right.
Well, that’s the other point of the article: Economically, they’re not – that is, Romney and Ryan are not, despite appearances, and rhetoric, to the contrary. They don’t really stand for “Goldwater-Reagan conservatism,” let alone Objectivist economic libertarianism. N.B.: The author talking about the candidates, not about their screaming base.
Taking the presidential election in isolation, maybe Lind has a point on some issues.
That said, we don’t just vote for men but for parties. The GOP is profoundly and actively anti-immigrant, anti-regulation, and anti-ecology. The Democratic Party, whatever Obama’s failings, is not so.
Overall, the most important change is getting progressives in Congress, and getting the knee-jerk conservatives out.
Sadly, it seems as if Obama isn’t doing much campaigning for progressive candidates, and there is no fifty-state plan as in '06. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from here it looks like Obama is Nixoning along as if it’s all about him.
I have to admit my knowledge of Vermont politics is rather sketchy. I know Sanders somewhat but know virtually nothing about MacGovern. If they were candidates in an election I was voting in, I’d have taken the time to learn more.
The same is more true with regard to British and Swedish politics. I have an abstract knowledge of the parties but nowhere near enough for me to say who I’d vote for if I lived in those countries.
Let’s not read too much into Lind’s piece, BG.
He’s talking about the (campaign season) politics of the Ryan pick, and the direction of the campaign. Not the actual difference in results between Romney and Obama as executives, which would differ as they are different men with different allies.
The thing modern conservatives forget is that Goldwater voted against tax cuts. The Republicans used to be the fiscally responsible party that opposed the Democratic Party’s calls for tax cuts. The old conservative platform was putting a balanced budget above all else. The modern conservative “voodoo economics” of claiming tax cuts will somehow solve all problems arose in the late seventies.
And I certain we’d get more of the same with Romney and Ryan in office. They might talk about cutting government spending but they wouldn’t pull the trigger. The last three Republican administrations have all increased government spending.
Both may seem “moderately right wing” but there’s a big difference. In his heart, Obama is relatively leftist, at least by American standards, but has to move right-ward to get legislation passed. Romney is something of an enigma, but even if we stipulate that he is “moderate,” his agenda as President will inevitably reach right-ward toward GOP lunacy. Consider just his first decision: VP selection.
There’s a “Who do you agree with?” webpage that’s been posted at SDMB 2 or 3 times. I find I agree about 85% with Obama and 3% with Romney – this surprised me since, like gamerunknown points out, the two seem similar on many issues. I’ll guess that the webpage probes ideological issues (environmentalism, human rights, science funding) that often get ignored. On these issues Obama is a progressive humanistic thinker, while Romney is clearly of the Republican Greed-God-and-Guile school.
Well I’m glad that Mr. Lind doesn’t believe a Republican victory will be a rerun of the Gilded Age. Of most liberal/leftish thinkers, I like Lind a lot since he recognizes that in this day and age the left is really nationalistic and that it is the right (in the sense of free-market neoliberals not paleocons) that is internationalist,
Shall we test that hypothesis by looking at foreign aid votes?
Here’s one amendment.
Here’s another.
The one instance I found in support of your hypothesis is in regards to the “Buy American” clause.
For more on that, see here.
Yes, Democrats favor aid, peace and health, whereas Republicans do not. So what? That’s old style internationalism.
Mr. Qin (aka Curtis LeMay) was presumably referring to new style internationalism. Bomb them, shoot their women and children, but they’ll love us once their fingers are purple and they can get Miami Vice reruns on their TV.
OTOH, IIRC Qin is anti-Choice. Perhaps he likes the GOP “internationalism” because of its emphasis on discouraging birth control in Africa.
i wish obama wasas left wing as eisenhower
Obama bombed the crap out of Libya. Is that old or new style internationalism?
[QUOTE=Michael Lind]
Romney will reassure old people that he will not take away their Social Security and Medicare, while Obama will insist that he is the genuine deficit hawk. And no matter who wins the White House in 2012, the U.S. will not adopt either Nordic social democracy or libertarian minimal government.
[/QUOTE]
No, but Romney’s reassurances don’t actually mean anything with respect to his policy choices. First of all, he’s committed to repealing Obamacare entirely, and turning Medicare into Vouchercare. Not to mention drastically cutting Medicaid, and turning what’s left of it over to the states in block grants. the effect of this would be to drastically reduce the number of insured Americans immediately, with more reductions coming when today’s under-55’s reach 65.
Obama, on the other hand, is committed to greatly expanding the number of Americans with adequate health insurance.
Second, Romney is the Tea Party’s bitch. They haven’t talked about Social Security, but they’ll try to privatize it again if Romney is elected. Bush was restrained by wanting Democratic cover for privatization, but the current crew in Congress doesn’t give a shit about cover: they want to do what damage they can do while they can, and if they get voted out afterwards, so be it.
And shall we talk about what Justices the two candidates might appoint to the Supreme Court, given that three current Justices turn 80 between this Presidential election and the next? A Court with a Romney appointee in place of Ginsburg would surely overturn Roe v. Wade, would finish the gutting of the few remaining restrictions on campaign finance, and would go along with pretty much any impediments to voting that GOP-controlled state legislatures care to pass.
The policy differences between the two candidates are enormous, and America can’t afford a GOP win in 2012.