Scenario: Liberals and the non-GOP Right

This question is for liberal Democrats and anyone else who can put themselves in their mindset.

Imagine an unusual sort of politician for either party, respected but not famous. Named Pat. I’m not specifying gender, party, or region of origin. Religion is unspecified Christian, hardly ever goes to church and it’s not always the same one. Background is: ten years in Congress promoting legislation in line with Pat’s ideology (see below). Previously, was a manager and then executive at a small chain of home appliance stores (profitable in the 90s; barely breaking even since the recession began). No real surprises in the “scandals & gaffes” department, maybe an inexplicable gift from a lobbyist, or a joke at a fundraiser that sounded dirty, but nothing so horrible as a unidirectional microphone.

For some reason, you can put this politician in the White House. (Maybe you’re head of a strangely influential mass movement, or you have superpowers, or whatever.)

Pat’s views are typical of the Democratic left / OWS on such matters as withdrawing from Afghanistan (ASAP), the PATRIOT Act (repeal it or gut it), health care, environmental protection, etc.

On the other hand, Pat is hotly against affirmative action in the extended public sector (i.e., both government agencies and organizations receiving taxpayer funding), and seeks to prohibit race being used as a “plus factor” by any institution taking as much as a dime of taxpayer money.

Also, Pat is in favor of an enormous reduction in legal and illegal immigration (say, 80%), favoring both smaller numbers of visas issued, and a rapid completion to the border fence. The 20% that don’t get stopped at the border are those with the best job skills, clean criminal records, etc.

Pat wants to end all foreign aid.

Pat opposes all tightening of Federal gun control laws but doesn’t seek to repeal any either.

You have a choice.

You can choose to flip a coin.
Heads means Obama wins re-election with a healthy coattail effect (ideological allies predominate in a D-controlled Congress).
Tails means Romney wins the election with a healthy coattail effect (ideological allies predominate in an R-controlled Congress).

Or you can choose Pat with a healthy coattail effect (ideological allies predominate in Congress, so much that Pat’s policies are likely to go into effect).
What do you choose?

I’d flip the coin.

Obama has disappointed me, but some of that (not quantifying here) is a direct result of Republican obstructionism. I believe Obama wants to do most of what he campaigned on in 2008.

Romney may have no core; alternating his beliefs as the wind blows, but I don’t get the impression that he’s a racist, xenophobic isolationist.

So, by playing this game, two of the three scenarios are unpalatable to me and the one choice I do have is to pick something that I don’t want? What am I missing here?

His mystery candidate is Ron Paul.

I didn’t think it was meant to be mysterious. Although he may have been trying to throw us off by reversing “respected” and “famous”.

Ron Paul’s views “are typical of the Democratic left / OWS on such matters as… health care”?

Or the environment. Paul wants to eliminate the EPA and rely on individual lawsuits as the only way to go after polluters. I don’t know who you talk to Blode, but this is not typical of the Democratic left.

As I understand it, we have
Obama > Pat > Romney
and you’re asking whether Pat is past the midpoint in desirability. To answer, I’d want to know Pat’s fiscal and monetary policies (and also know more about Romney’s policies. :smack: )

My mystery candidate was fictitious. I chose the name Pat to be gender-neutral. I had to make a fictitious candidate up because no actual candidate (or member of Congress who isn’t a candidate) comes close to the policy combination I proposed.

I have NO clue how Ron Paul came into this. Ron Paul gets an “F” rating from Numbers USA, the only anti-immigration group I know of who has rated him. I suspect (but I’m not sure) that Ron Paul wants to repeal most or all Federal gun control laws. I don’t believe any actual politician has drawn a sharp distinction between public and private as regards affirmative action. Several of Paul’s major issues (taxation, monetary policy, etc.) don’t figure in Pat’s big ideas. Finally, I don’t know that Paul has any background managing in the retail sector; I think he was just a doctor (OB?)

The goal was to see if there is any common ground between the Democratic left and the alt-right. A lot of alt-rightists can’t stand the GOP and don’t particularly care for Ron Paul.

There certainly was common ground between the New Left (circa late 1960s) and those rightists who were a little like Murray Rothbard. I was wondering if there were any coalition possibilities like that in the present day. There probably aren’t, but you never know. I knew so many Democrats in the Bush era who claimed to love John McCain and several alt-rights who like(d) Howard Dean. Some Democrats like Ron Paul okay (I suppose because of his anti-Fed, anti-war, and anti-PATRIOT stances), which I suppose may have caused the confusion above.

Historic Romney or Current Romney? Cause Historic Romney wasn’t THAT bad. Current one should stick his head in a fishbowl and inhale. He’s just like McCain. Principled, unapologetic for different opinions than his party, a descent guy. THEN THEY RUN FOR PRESIDENT AND THROW ALL THOSE NICE THINGS UNDER A BUS.

Septimus, you are correct. “Is Pat closer to Obama in desirability, or to Romney?”

I can’t tell how much the harder Democratic left (e.g. Occupy Wall Street) agree with Obama’s fiscal and monetary policies. You can say Pat is somewhere between them, which would make him equally acceptable or unacceptable to both.

The harder right may not like those policies but I am positing that the hard right isn’t focussing on monetary & fiscal for this cycle. (At some point I may posit this scenario to alt-rightists somewhere, but Straight Dope may not be the place for that.)

You say that Pat wants to cut illegal immigration by 80%, but you don’t say how he expects to do that, nor what he plans to replace it with. And what’s the border fence supposed to be for, make-work programs? I suppose it’s better than military spending, but I’d rather see, say, trail maintenance in national parks-- Those at least serve some use.

Obama. Don’t want Pat (which is whom you’re describing, more or less – Pat, not Ron) nowhere near the WH.

Pat wants to use the border fence to stop illegal immigration. Pat’s supporters consider that unsurprising. I can’t tell you want Pat plans to replace it with since I don’t understand the question.

To clarify, the choice wasn’t supposed to be between Pat and Obama, but between Pat and a coin toss.

Coin toss. Don’t want Pat (which is whom you’re describing, more or less – Pat, not Ron – who would be equally unacceptable for different reasons) nowhere near the WH.

Why don’t you posit a scenario where Pat more closely resembles Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders? That or a coin toss would be a decision worth wrestling with. The one you posed is a no-brainer.

Flip a coin. I don’t want a neo-isolationist demagogue near the White House.

And for his next trick, will he use a platypus to reduce unemployment? Or maybe chocolate-covered banana to fix the European currency systems? Because those both have about as much chance of working as trying to use a fence to stop immigration.

And by “what he plans to replace it with”, I mean what he plans to replace illegal immigration with, because as things stand right now, our economy depends on it.

Well, certainly our economy would take a hard hit if all illegal immigrants now in the U.S. were deported. But, would it really take it hit if no more managed to get in?

What are Pat’s views on fiscal policy, monetary policy and textbook economics? I see he favors health care reform.

Realistically, this sounds something like George Wallace-- a populist nutbag with a few lefty sympathies. And the idea that, “ideological allies predominate in Congress, so much that Pat’s policies are likely to go into effect,” sounds kind of silly. Maybe he could get a couple of watered down legislative victories to declare victory over though, in this thought experiment. Still I find it hard to imagine a nativist progressive being elected to Congress any time soon, never mind the Presidency.