We have actually quite a good number of former Republicans who have switched after seeing what has happened to their party.
But you elect someone hoping they will be able to do do what you want them to do. How effective have elected Republicans been in the past that have gone against GOP policies?
The political economy is such that if you feel strongly about one issue then you should vote on that issue and not by party. Old Vulcan saying that only Nixon could go to China.
Ronald Reagan wanted to reform welfare but he never had a majority in congress who would go along with him. The Republicans would vote for it and the Democrats against so no matter how talented a politician he was he could not pass this part of his agenda. In 1992 Clinton comes along and wants to reform welfare. He was able to because he was a democrat. He got all the Republican votes because they wanted to reform welfare and he got enough Democrat votes because he made it safe for a Democrat and some out of loyalty to him. So if you were someone who cared about welfare reform in 1992 the correct vote was for Clinton even though both candidates supported the issue.
I care about abortion so if a Democrat made a credible promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who cared about the constitution I would vote for him over a Republican who made a similar promise. Unfortunately, that will happen when pigs fly so I will never have to hold my nose and vote for a Democrat.
That doesn’t further your argument very much. Thomas was not nominated by someone sleazy and corrupt, and his tenure on the Court was not such a disaster as to outweigh every other consideration and vote for a Democratic scumball to avoid it.
Unless one wishes to consider any conservative Justice as disastrous, in which case the distinction between reasonable Presidents and scumballs is meaningless.
Yes, the Usual Suspects will chime in and say exactly that, but I am talking about situations employing conscious thought, not knee-jerking.
The problem with selling out the rest of your principles to preserve one of them is that you get forced to compromise even the one. Witness NOW and the like clamoring in support of Bill Clinton out of one side of their mouths, and condemning sexual harassment of women in the workplace out of the other.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually the description of Thomas as an intellectual lightweight seems to be an indication of exactly this phenomenon. By all indications that I can see, Thomas has a judicial philosophy that’s a bit out of the mainstream, but he’s very much an intellectual heavyweight. An intellectual lightweight would be more apt for someone who doesn’t really have a coherent judicial philosophy at all and kind of just wings it on a case-by-case basis based on prefered outcome.
You can compare the Wikipedia descriptions of Thomas versus O’Connor as examples of this difference.
[IIRC I’ve also read on this board that Thomas is frequently assigned decisions on particularly complicated commercial/contract matters.]
ISTM the notion of Thomas as an intellectual lightweight is based on 1) dislike of his judicial philosophy, 2) the fact that he rarely speaks during oral arguments, and 3) the suspicion that he’s an affirmative action beneficiary.
That may well be, I’m not a particularly close court-follower.
But my response to Shodan is that if my objective in life is to see general democratic principles furthered, then I’m probably better off with a venal and lazy and partisan Democratic president who will just nominate someone inoffensive but Democratic to appease his constituents, than I am with someone intelligent and honest and principled and Republican, who will nominate a brilliant and effective advocate for Republican principles. (And note the distinction between that and, say, Secretary of State, where I think the US is at least arguably better off with a brilliant and principled and ethical and honest and awesome person whose political leanings I disagree with than a corrupt moron on “my side”.)
There’s certainly a pattern in judicial appointments in which Republican presidents nominate conservative-leaning justices and Democratic presidents nominate liberal-leaning justices. If there has also been a pattern in which brilliant and competent and ethical presidents nominate brilliant and competent and ethical justices, and vice versa, I’m not aware of it.
I’ve been pretty satisfied with the Supreme Court, and I say that as someone who hates politics and government generally, and the actual bastards in power right now specifically.
The only ruling I was disappointed by recently, Hobby Lobby, actually turned out to be well reasoned, in my opinion. It’s just the ACA that was bullshit. Offer people healthcare without filtering it through their employers and you’ll easily fix that clusterfuck.
I worry about Roe being overturned if a significant number of whackdoodles get appointed, but Heller, Citizen’s United, etc. are all solid decisions in my opinion, and I doubt one or two GOP-nominated justices would or could make the whole court turn crazy overnight.
I still don’t vote Republican, but that’s because they haven’t nominated anyone as sane, thoughtful or decent as the Democrats have, even though that’s a pitifully low bar to cross. I’d probably vote for Satan over a Democrat, but none of the Republican candidates from this century are even that appealing. I hate Democrats. I hate Republicans. But it turns out when the current generation of Dems are in power, the worst they do is waste money and not fix things. When Pubs are in power, people die, and they waste money without fixing anything. But I’m not opposed to a Republican president on principle, just all the ones they’ve nominated since I’ve became a voter in 2000.
I’m not arguing with this point because I happen to agree with it on balance. But I would note one counter-consideration.
Which is that there is something in maintaining or even raising versus lowering the bar. You get a Democrat (or, in my case, a Republican) nominating some mediocre talent but ideologically aligned candidate, and we would prefer that guy over some super-competent but ideologically distasteful guy. But what also happens is that the bar gets lowered, and this increases the likelihood that next time the other guys get into power they push through someone who is both mediocre and ideologically distasteful.
Registered independent here. Here’s how I regard elections:
I’m a social liberal and an economic/fiscal conservative. I’ve probably voted 50/50 for both parties in presidential elections since the 1970s.
I tend to really dislike the Religious Right in the Republican party as well as the old-style socialist lefties in the Democratic Party. So as time goes on, I increasingly tend to vote against one party or the other (protest vote). For example, if Congress is dominated by one party, then I’ll often vote the other party for President. As I see it, give too much power to either party and sooner or later they’ll start thinking they have a mandate to pull the country too far over to their side. Gridlock is safer, and it forces both sides to work together a bit and moderate their tone.
In addition, they say that hard-core partisan voters on either side tend to balance each other out country-wide, so basically it’s the independents who decide the elections. So I get to flatter myself that as an independent I have some kind of heightened ability to decide close elections.
But I don’t take it too seriously. Everyone gets in a fuss about politics these days. Frankly I don’t see that big a difference between the two mainstream parties (as long as things aren’t so lopsided that one side starts to really run wild with its policies). And there’s a lot of inertia in the system: Even with a lopsided power balance, it’s hard for either side to make more than incremental change. Checks and balances and all that.
As for the OP, you sound like a partisan to me. Maybe not hard-core, but a legitimate partisan nonetheless.
Oh, absolutely. I have never denied it. I’m a registered Democrat and I volunteered for Obama. I have never voted for a presidential or congressional candidate who was not a Democrat.
What I am not (I like to think) is a blind partisan.
I didn’t intend for this thread to tout the superiority of being partisan vs. being independent. Rather I’m trying to address (and some people are responding to) is what seems to me to be an unintended side effect of the division of powers in the US, one which makes it even harder for me to vote for candidate-rather-than-party than it already would be.
Fair points… but I’m curious to what extent there has actually been a connection between “bad” presidents and “bad” supreme court nominations. If we go back 20+ years, such that we’re starting to get some historical perspective on both presidents and supreme court justices, is there a correlation between how effective a president is and how effective the justices he nominates are? (Particularly, the ones who actually get approved?)
Okay. To address that (and probably repeat what others said; I only skimmed the thread): You’re kind of playing off two factors: You’re hyper-focused on SCOTUS nominations; and at the same time it seems you’re 80% in the Democratic camp even without the SCOTUS thing happening. In my mind, that makes you pretty far gone.
As for SCOTUS nominations, a lot of people use that as a justification for holding their nose and voting for a candidate or party they would otherwise dislike. Just to take one common example: Abortion-rights advocates often take the position that they must vote Democrat whether they like the candidate or not. But I think abortion is kind of a red herring. Even most Repub politicians freely admit that the abortion horse is out of the barn. That clock isn’t going to be turned back–Americans are too used to having that right to be stripped of it this late. And even if the SCOTUS did somehow reverse itself or severely curtail the right, it would just be re-fought in the states the same way that gay marriage is going.
As for the 80% thing: Well, it sounds like you’re looking at issues one by one. Whereas I look at things as more of an overall balance-of-power issue.
I agree with the OP, but place the blame squarely at the feet of the Supreme Court for assuming political powers in our system that the founders never intended.
You want abortion or gay marriage to be legal nationwide? Congress can’t do it, nor the President. You want to ban the death penalty in all 50 states? The Supreme Court did for a while.
The absolutely immense power these nine individuals, serving life terms, have with no veto power to overrule them have skewed the political process. Each party has a larger bloc of “safe” votes because the next four years just isn’t as important as the next forty. The Justice(s) a president appoints will be there for a couple of generations.
If the Court had less power, we might think that it is okay to vote for a good candidate from the other party instead of a poor candidate from our party. With such a powerful court, neither side can take that chance because of the long term consequences.
That’s exactly what your voting practices are. Blindly Partisan. You’ve repeatedly stated that you will vote Dem almost without exception. That’s blind, raw, naked, ugly, and unsophisticated partisanship. Nothing matters beyond the (D) after a candidates name.
Let me use the abortion example one more time, then I’ll drop it. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; I usually don’t do political arguments. The OP simply asked how a true independent would view him, so I’m relaying that info. But I don’t care to change anyone’s political opinions. It’s all the same to me.
Anyway:
Roe v. Wade was decided by SCOTUS in 1973. At the time, Republicans immediately started yelling that they would block it or overturn it in one fashion or another–legislatively, judicially, or whatever. But it never happened; never even came close. There have been lots of Republican presidents and Congresses since then, and I’ve never gotten the feeling that there was a realistic threat to Roe v. Wade. As far as I can see, it’s just a drum that each side beats around election time in order to rally the troops. Sure, the conservatives chip away at the edges a bit (waiting periods, restrictions on third trimester abortions, etc.) But the essence of Roe v. Wade itself has never been under serious attack.
I’m an abortion-rights supporter myself. If there were a serious threat to Roe v. Wade, I would definitely come down on the Democrat side. But I think that’s exactly why Roe v. Wade never faces a serious challenge–it would be a disaster for the Republican Party. Republicans are supposed to be about personal freedom and all that. Strip away such an important personal right, and the next election would see a Democrat landslide.
If you want an example from the other side: I’m a member of the NRA, and the NRA keeps beating the drum about how the government is a hair away from taking away our guns. I get emails from them daily. But it’s just more drum-beating. There’s never been a serious challenge to gun ownership at the national level. Sure, the Left chips away at the edges (Brady law, ban on assault weapons, bans at local levels). But the second amendment itself has never really been questioned. It just gets reinterpreted a bit from time to time.
In summary:
SCOTUS has repeatedly insisted over time that it’s not going to do any big, sudden lurches that would go contrary to precedent or go against the obvious will of the electorate. In any case, if the SCOTUS gets too far out of whack, it can be outmaneuvered by Congress, the President, and/or the states. Checks and balances. As such, a hyper-focus on SCOTUS nominations seems misguided to me. There are so many other things happening in elections. Why put so much emphasis on SCOTUS nominations? As shown by the example of Roe v Wade over the last 40 years, SCOTUS issues aren’t nearly the cliffhangers that the partisans would have you believe.
Okay, I’ll drop it. Again, I’m just responding to the OP. Not trying to change votes or voters.
No, I’m not.
Indeed, but while you may not like the appointments, you’ll be able to respect them. For example, you’ll know that the SC Justices they appoint are honest and true; such would not be the case with a sleazeball President.
I just realized that my latest post needed more of an introduction. That is, in my last post I was expanding on what I had said in an earlier post. In the earlier post I said:
IOW, taking everything together, I’m saying that partisans on either side would have you believe that things like abortion rights or gun ownership rights are under constant threat of being taken away from us: They say, “All it takes is one bad SCOTUS nomination.”
But history shows that both abortion rights and gun ownership rights are popular in the US, and there hasn’t been any serious attack on either right by any of the legislative branches, even when the government was closely held by one party or the other. As such, the system works: The people largely get what the want. The only hard part is figuring out what the people want sometimes.
And SCOTUS is no more of a threat to good governance than any of the other branches.
Okay, now I’m done. 
I meant to say, “there hasn’t been any serious attack on either right by any of the branches of government”.
I wish we could edit these things past the first five minutes.
I strongly agree with MaxTheVool.
During the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, and even the 1980’s and early 90’s, both major parties were “Big Tent” parties. Sure, the median Republican was well to the right of the median Democrat (and candidates at the extreme like Goldwater could arise), but there were very liberal Republicans and very conservative Democrats. Each party had its own internal debates; and the parties could work well together at the national level.
I think having two “big tent” parties worked well. As control alternated between the parties the country didn’t jerk from left to right, but stayed near the center. Voices at the extremes were heard, but filtered into a consensus that migrated only slowly toward left or right. It made sense for a voter to switch from one party to the other if he thought the gradual drift was going in the wrong direction.
But the situation has changed completely. I and others have posted links showing that Congress votes along party lines far more than in the past. Compromise has become a sick joke. The problem is not polarization of politicians (the best ones still earnestly seek bipartisanship), but polarization of voters. A big part of the problem is the polarization of news: instead of one or two local newspapers which everyone reads, people get self-selected news from Internet or cable. Leftists who are denied connections to right-wing opinion become more leftist; and vice versa. (It’s well known that FoxNews viewers are more ignorant than those with a different news source; I was surprised to read recently that they are also more ignorant than those with no news source at all! As another example, many people who would consider themselves ignorant of economics in more rational times, now regard themselves as well-informed … by gold-bug rants on YouTube.)
Unfortunately, as news sources and political opinions become more polarized and the influence of money on politics continues to grow, voter ignorance and apathy remain a big problem. In earlier days the ignorant and apathetic voter might be faced with a choice between two good-spirited moderates, either of whom might embrace bipartisanship: selecting between the two in an arbitrary way wasn’t particularly harmful. But now voters may unwittingly choose a stooge of big-moneyed interests.
It’s important to note that it is not the case that Republicans have moved to the right and Democrats to the the left. The Democrats have moved to the right; the Republicans have raced far beyond the right to something which has no polite name. If this isn’t clear, consider Obamacare – almost the exact same program was proposed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans in 1971, but rejected by Democrats as not liberal enough. Now we have Nixon’s program, passing Congress without a single Republican vote!
That’s not the same thing as blind partisanship.
Blind partisanship is where you won’t even consider which candidate will be more of a positive impact if elected. What Max is doing is laying out a rationale for assuming that the election of one party’s candidate will always be the more positive outcome.
And it’s a rationale that I agree with, as above. I myself have never voted for any Democrat above the local level (though I’ve occasionally voted Libertarian), and in the upcoming election it’s inconceivable that I would vote for the Democrat no matter who the two candidates are (even Donald Trump :eek:).
I suppose you can quibble with whether that’s defined as “partisanship”, but that’s semantics. At any rate, it’s not “blind, raw, naked, ugly, and unsophisticated”.