TedBaiamonte has been suspended for a day for ignoring mod instruction and generally being disruptive. I’m going to request a ban, but in the meantime at least we get a day off from whatever this was.
May 19th has now been proclaimed national Hug A Moderator Day !
Warning issued: You were already modnoted about empty posts like this one. You appear to be a Sealioning Troll and as such I will be asking the mods to ban you. You are also suspended for a day in the meantime.
etc.
Even if it is that sort of dichotomy, the real problem is that one side is basically refusing to play ball, and is trying to change the rules.
I mean, ideally the outcome of two opposing viewpoints should be some sort of middle compromise- the comment that I’ve heard is that it’s a good compromise if nobody actually likes it, but everyone tolerates it.
Except that the Republicans are effectively digging their heels in and refusing to compromise on the vast majority of issues- there’s no middle ground to be found on so many high visibility issues.
The biggest problem, IMHO, is that issues are being portrayed in an us vs them way when some things are simply in everyone’s interests.
Universal healthcare, if done correctly, would mean a lot more efficiency, money saved and effectiveness - all things that ought to, in theory, appeal to conservatives. But it’s marketed the wrong way, and hence it’s opposed because it’s a “liberal idea” when it shouldn’t - it should be viewed as useful for all.
America needs a president who can market and sell an idea with the right packaging to both sides as a win-win for all.
Second that!
I guess my thread is going to die now because everybody left* already agrees with my OP.
*See what I did there?
It is marketed as exactly what you say, efficiency, money saved, and effectiveness. However, since it’s a “liberal idea” (even though the ACA originated in Republican think tanks) it is opposed reflexively, with ad hoc and usually untrue justifications to follow.
No, american needs a constituency that is willing to buy a package that is a win-win for all, instead of looking for how to make the other side lose.
Requoted from the OP’s book extract:
Earlier, I posted this as a sort of half-joking comment in another thread. Never mind. That book suggests it would be literally true:
Actually your summary is remarkably close to my view on it also.
This was my first exposure to the use of the term “sealioning troll”, so I looked it up–that’s a high quality descriptor of a tactic I’ve seen a lot, but hadn’t really seen a unified term for previously.
The article singles out Kevin McCarthy for particular scorn (which I think is fair, he is neither crazy enough to get an “insanity defense” pass like MTG or Boebert, or outright evil enough to just be understood as a malignancy ala Trump, instead he is someone who basically should know better, and chose deliberately not to for pure lust of power) and I think looking at the Republican history of that position is telling.
Going back to Obama’s first term, we have John Boehner in that seat. Boehner was certainly a flawed politician, but he had some sense that “yes, I do have a responsibility to not let the country entirely implode.” His political cravenness meant that he had to flirt with allowing it to implode, but when things came down to the wire he showed his cards even though it burned him with the House Freedom Caucus, he’d compromise his basic sense of government responsibility quite far, but even he had a line. He eventually left politics in part because he realized someone who has just the tiniest, thinnest veneer of caring about getting things done really has no place in leadership in the GOP.
Then walks in Paul Ryan, ideologically more “pure” right winger, and thus in theory more acceptable to the House Freedom Caucus. He largely did little better with his own crazies than Boehner did, and he announced he was not running for reelection in the '18 midterms and left office as power transitioned to the House Democrats. While he hasn’t spoken a ton about it, it seems fairly obvious he had the same core problem that Boehner did–while he has few principles and many allegiances to far right interests, on some level he did not get into government to destroy the country, so he wasn’t willing to keep going with a party leadership position that is difficult to hold or manage unless you are fine with that.
Now we arrive on Kevin McCarthy–he is the one who has shown that he doesn’t even have the weak lines that Boehner and Ryan wouldn’t cross, McCarthy is the man who will go as far as the crazies want him to go–because his sole concern is getting power and keeping power.
The general “devolution” of quality of Republican elected leaders is continuing apace, and things will get much worse before they get better because of it–if they can get better or will get better at all.
It seems to me even more significant that what McCarthy does is what he needs to do to retain power, that these actions are richly rewarded by the voters, and that if he didn’t do it, he would be deposed by someone who would, and even more intensely. (I assume that the factors that led to this is part of the “core” being discussed in the book.)
“They do have it very sweet in China now under Republican capitalism”
If this is true, why do so many people insist on referring to anything to do with China as Chinese Communist Party? Like, I can’t mention China without my hyper-partisan wife scoffing, “Oh, you mean the Communists?”
Serious question, btw.
Because most people who speak about anything political start with a desire to put forth a specific political viewpoint.
China is run by the Chinese Communist Party as a one-party state, which is absolute truth. However, it has largely abandoned many of the core tenets of Marxism-Leninism that it followed prior to Deng’s reign. It now practices a mixture of state capitalism (with significant cronyism), some free market capitalism, and also promotes some remnant Marxism-Leninism policies/behaviors. As has been said many times before–it is a blended system.
Most modern Republicans have essentially no idea what Communism or Socialism or Marxism are (and admittedly, depending on philosophical school you follow Communism & Socialism aren’t always distinct terms), it’s just a word they use to mean “something we hate.” The modern GOP actually favors many of the domestic economic policies the CCP uses, but the GOP still dislikes China for a number of reasons, so they are going to play up its Communism because Communism is a word that means “people conservatives hate.”
Thank you for that cogent explanation. I also note with interest that the touring show of Shen Yun, a Chinese arts and dance troupe, is billing itself as “China before Communism.” I imagine that this is a dog whistle, and a fairly cynical one at that, intended to draw in those who probably wouldn’t give a tinker’s dam about seeing something like that normally.
ETA: So it turns out that Shen Yun is presented by the Falun Gong, the same folks behind Epoch Times. All my previous eyerolls seem to be merited.