In another thread, it was contended that a liberal’s characterization of the conservative platform was distorted. Fair enough.
What is the right-wing platform?
Or is the GOP non-ideological and it depends on whatever the Speaker of the House feels like doing?
Since I’ve been disassociated from the Party for a few years, I’ll let those of you on the inside tell me.
Feel free to distinguish between different sects and strands of conservatism.
The GOP party’s platform is on their website. Keep in mind that the other thread you are referring to, which itself was sourced from a different thread, was purporting to state what the GOP platform was. I’m sure you can find some conservative somewhere who might agree with any part of that original post. But that doesn’t make it part of the GOP platform, or even a consensus idea among conservatives in general.
Unless it’s an organized group with a defined set of goals, then there isn’t a platform. You might as well ask each individual conservative what he wants to see.
But I’m sure someone like Martin Hyde can articulate a pretty good common thread platform from a conservative perspective. Maybe he’ll be along to oblige you.
Lower taxes for the rich. They’ll give lip service to social conservatives, but it will be all about making the rich even richer.
Nonsense. The GOP party platform has consistently been for lower taxes across the board. And whenever they can, they vote to restrict things like SSM and abortion. No lip service about it. Sure, they run on a platform of repealing Roe, knowing it’s not likely, but they would if they could.
But then, you probably have cites from the party platform to back up your well thought-out assertions, so I’ll let you bring them out and prove me wrong.
I think this is demonstrably false, based on their insistence on spending offsets to extend the payroll tax cuts, while not demanding spending offsets to extend the Bush tax cuts. I am sure they have some pat answer, but it looks patently hypocritical.
The Republicans are currently adherents of what I’ve termed “Totalitarianism-Lite”: The attempt to emulate, as much as is possible in a democracy, the ideological absolutism of a revolutionary one-party state. They believe first and foremost in winning; and evidently believe that the way to do that is to adopt a strategy of doublethink straight out of Orwell or Soviet propaganda of the early 20th century, because only ruthless bastards who never, ever for a single instant doubt themselves can win. The Party is a shining bastion of goodness and light, its opponents are devils. The Party always tells the truth and its opponents always lie. Doubt is faithlessness, compromise is treason. Imagine having to try to make a coalition government with North Korea and you’ll understand why the federal government is gridlocked.
The Republican dream is to establish, within a nominally democratic framework, a perpetually re-elected one-party supermajority similar to the way the PRI ruled Mexico for 70 years, with the Democrats reduced to a token opposition- a sort of court jester whose contemptability serves to highlight the correctness of the Party’s position. Only what exactly the Party supposedly stands for is irrelevent; the purpose of power is power. Despite the hopes of the truly radical right- the proponents of a Christian theocracy for example- the Party will never do anything that would actually risk its power by alienating too many voters. So the proponents of totalitarianism-lite basically talk tough, pushing where they think they can and backing off when too many voters call bullshit.
That was an awesome description. I think you are right on the money
Yes it is…but I don’t think that is the same as the right-wing platform the OP is referring to.
The OP is referring to both: “the GOP/right-wing platform”. You snipped my answer to the first part, and left out my answer the 2nd. “GOP” and “right wing” are not the same. The former is an organized party with a well published platform. The latter is an amorphous, unorganized classification with any number of positions on the issues.
They talk a lot about “broadening the tax base”, i.e., making taxes less progressive by eliminating the various credits the poor and lower-middle class benefit from. Hardly “lower taxes across the board”.
As for the platform? Recreate the free, prosperous, idyllic 50s America that exists in only in their imagination, with a brutal, repressive, stagnant theocracy as an intermediate state until everyone who doesn’t agree with them has either been killed, jailed, or forced to leave the country.
OK, coming back to reality; The current GOP seems to be dominated by the Tea Party. As such they seem socially conservative and economically libertarian.
From what I’ve been hearing in the news they seem to be about the following.
They are however a bunch of liars, so that doesn’t mean anything. Yes I know, a bunch of politicians lying; shocking!
At the moment there seems to be a grand divide between the ones focusing on economic issues (largely tax cuts, and largely for the upper 50%) and those focusing on social/religious issues. Listening to some of the rhetoric coming out of Iowa the latter group seem to love Santorum and Bachmann and openly loathe Romney (for being Mormon) and Gingrich (for being a serial adulterer), whereas the ones with their eye on the money would prefer Gingrich, Perry or Romney. The Big Tent approach is falling apart at the moment, although whether it will knit together again post-primary season into a more unified platform or whether (like the further-left) the fringe groups sulk about not having a candidate which exactly meets their needs remains to be seen.
I agree with Lumpy’s assessment in that the pursuit of power is always first and foremost about attaining power and second about any other particular goals. That said, I’d be hard-pressed to show that the Democrats weren’t doing the same; they’re just less ruthless about it. And the left-of-Democrat wing tends to put ideology over electability and thus almost never gets elected.
To be fair, both parties share the goal of control of the presidency and Congress, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Do you disagree?
However, it’s not either party that prevents the extremists from taking over. It’s that the US is not populated by majority extremists (an oxymoron, btw). In order to gain a filibuster proof Senate, Dems have to elect moderate Senators and Pubbies have to do the same. You’ve got your Ben Nelsons and your Olympia Snows.
Also, one thing that is dominating the GOP platform is to get rid of Obama. Hence, you will find them opposing things they would normally agree with if those things are proposed by Obama.
If Obama said he likes puppies, the Republican candidates would each have a photo op throwing puppies into a wood chipper.
The Republican goal is a one party government. They pay lip service to things they don’t really give a flying fuck about, such as abortion, because they know they can get some really easy votes by said lip service. The initiatives for voter ID serve no other purpose than to discourage voting by likely Democratic voters. The Republican Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision did so with the intent to help Republicans gain power. The goal is power for the purpose of having perpetual power, and to use this power to advance their “I got mine, fuck you” philosophy.
It’s not an oxymoron; for example if the majority of a nation’s population is borderline our outright fanatic that would certainly qualify as a majority of extremists. If the majority can never be extreme, then mass suicide or genocide or totalitarianism isn’t extreme if the majority supports it, which is ridiculous.
The idea that the political majority is always moderate is a rhetorical tool used to deny the drift of America towards the far right, since by that definition no matter how far America goes to the Right it’s always moderate.
If we’re comparing things on a world scale, then things like “gay rights” are extreme. Hell, one might argue that democracy itself is extreme. You, I am sure, what to restrict the comparison only to countries with political centers to the left of where the US is.
Hence, I see no value in internationalizing the political spectrum of the US. The center is defined as what is center in the US. Extreme is defined as what is extreme in the US. to do otherwise is ridiculous. But if you want to go there, then let’s do it. The US is a left of center country concerning civil rights. Agreed?
I gather from this thread that much of the SDMB has no idea what the GOP wants, but by golly they are against it.
Regards,
Shodan
Then enlighten us, please.
And I gather from your post that you are either unsure yourself or you’d rather not say, so you cover up your inability by mocking those who are asking the question in the first place.