I for one hope they keep up their “RINO” attacks and try to drive as many people as possible away from the party. Either they will succeed and the people they drive away will eventually form a more moderate party, or there will be a fight over the soul of the party and one side or the other will win with the losers likewise having to find/create another party.
I attend various Republican party functions. I drink with them afterward and listen to their opinions after a few beers or scotches. To the party faithful the fact that a “nigger” is President of the United States is positively infuriating, and if you do not think this fuels a large part of the antipathy toward him over and above purely political issues you need to think again.
They do not just disagree with him they *hate * and fear him on a very visceral level.
You never know. It isn’t like people pay attention to policy. And as Bill Clinton said people would rather side with someone who is wrong but is convinced they are right than the other way around. Even if they continue to devolve, they will still win 45%+ of the electorate.
** The GOP doesn’t seem to be a very healthy party these days. It’s just racist fury & cultural rage**
Oh come on, it’s more than that. What about finding scapegoats* to compensate for lack of ideas and will power?
That part really pisses off Democrats, since they like to believe they thought of it first (a.k.a. The Rich are the source of all Evil).
my current personal favorite is “crony capitalism”, a major right wing meme (despite the GOP’s arguably having thought of that first*).
**Halliburton, anyone?
Guys, haven’t you been paying attention? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any power over Wall Street. There are no political parties, when it comes to policy once elected. There are just guys with a “D” after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding, and guys with an “R” after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding. All else is a side issue. We live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.
Each month? I think you’ve missed a few. The “me too!!” threads are a hobby here.
All democracies have plutocratic elements-that has been a criticism since Plato’s days. Wall Street is just one of many special interests-consider for example the dominance of the public sector unions in the Democratic Party. Incidentally the Tea Party opposed the bank bailouts along with the left.
There isn’t a single, solitary idea that this racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job Republican party holds at the moment that could possibly be described as “attractive” to anyone but a racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job lunatic.
I don’t see “cynical rich people” on there. That’s about the only exception I can think of, and even then it is better described as “short term-thinking cynical rich people” since purposefully drawing us further to bankrupcy isn’t good in the long run, but I don’t think that people who decide to pursue this all in the name of a saving a percent or so on their taxes are necessarily ignorant. I would heartily disagree with them, but it is not as much of a total slam dunk surety that I’d label one ignorant for not agreeing that GOP tax strategy would ruin us.
There’s gotta be a couple, ten thousand people in that category.
The Republicans aren’t going anywhere as long as the Democrats have nothing better to offer than a warmed-over serving of the Great Society (when America is now nearly broke) and the Civil Rights movement (for ever more marginal minorities). I picture the Dems as a bunch of white-haired hippies singing “Blowin’ in the Wind”.
I believe that the Republicans appeal to wealthy people who want to keep their money, poor people who love Jesus and guys who are afraid of losing firearms.
i believe the nra is a good analogy here.
at one time there were sensible people in the nra. they knew that the 2nd amendment will not be overturned and that some control over weapons and armament did not mean “taking away all my guns”.
the more radical part of the nra did not like some of the controls that the organization agreed with, and started a shadow campaign of getting like minded folks into the leadership.
slowly but surely, they took over the admin of the nra, got into positions of power, and now no one dares to say one word about control laws. if you do, even they most logical bits of control, you will have the hammers of the nra pulled back and the next thing you know you are shot out of politics.
how is that different than what the tea party is doing to the more logical and clear minded republicans?
and yes, even though obama’s family has been in this country longer than most of those who are claiming “he’s not american”, there are those who will never, ever, be ready for anything other than full white male president.
Where else where they going to go?
No, it can’t continue – demographically. What you’re describing is the grouping labled “Staunch Conservatives” (as distinct from “Main Street Republicans”) in the Pew Political Typology, and they are the oldest of the nine typology groups – 61% over 50 – and their children and grandchildren will never think quite they way they do. They will not go gentle, but as a political force they peaked almost as soon as they discovered their strength. The GOP will gradually become sane again by process of generational attrition.
It doesn’t work that way. Our two main parties, or at least their brand-labels, have survived for more than a hundred and fifty years now by gradually changing their ideologies/compositions.
Not overturned, but it could have been effectively interpreted out of existence; i.e., the 2nd only protects the right of states to have a National Guard, and private firearms could be completely banned. And gun control advocates openly proclaimed their goal of a gun-free society, one precedent at a time.
After decades of the NRA going along with “sensible” gun controls and primarily advocating firearms for hunting (“Fudds”), people noticed that the private possession of firearms was being threatened and that the NRA would have to reorganize if there were going to be any firearms at all.
Nice way of associating promoting gun control with risking assassination. Gun owners oppose “even the most logical bits of control” because the logic is based on the inherent premise that private citizens have no business possessing guns at all. Someone proposes “even the most logical bits of control” for voter ID and suddenly it’s the civil rights organizations who pull back the hammers and shoot people out of politics.
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread.
Time once again for my favorite rant.
The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan’s point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state’s next election, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) – how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets – which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a “big tent” party – which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don’t always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.
If you don’t like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world’s democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.
See also:
Instant-Runoff Voting: For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one – which presents the “spoiler” problem – in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted “1 – Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader”; or, “1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan”; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you.
(The similar approval voting or Condorcet system, where you just vote “yes” or “no” as to each of several candidates, does offer certain abstruse-to-all-but-polysci-nerds-even-worse-than-I advantages over IRV. But, I’m thinking IRV is better for America, because, 1) it’s an easier sell – the chances to rank-order the candidates is more psychologically satisfying to the voter; and 2) the results, how the voters rank-order the candidates, produces information of greater civic value.)
Electoral fusion: Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party’s), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however.
What makes you think there is a pendulum?
Oh, more than one, but in American politics any moderately successful third party is “the bee that stings and dies,” that is, some elements of its platform get co-opted by one or both of the big two and the third party fades away. Only the Republicans ever managed to go from third-party to major party, and they got started in a rare time when the non-Dem side of the party system was fragmented.
Scapegoating is not quite always wrong . . .
But, they’re not all just the same. Yes, of course both major parties are owned by the big-biz interests and Wall Street, our campaign-financing system allows of no other outcome; the difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned, because the view of the voting-base still matter somewhat.