Oh, I don’t need that for a motive.
Regards,
Shodan
The GOP party platform can be easily understood in the form of Zen koan.
Or, you can read their web site.
You’ve given this answer before, and once again you are answering the wrong question.
Czarcasm, the OP him/her/itself calls it the “Republican/Right-wing platform.” The Republican paryt has a specific, set platform. Conservatives are not a political party and do not have a platform. Conservativism covers hundreds if not thousands of groups and millions of people. It has a great deal of variance, depending on which branch of conservative thinking you’re referring to,
I don’t know to what the OP is referring, probably because it doesn’t exist. I don’t know who said what in this other thread. However, you are foolishly dumping on John Mace and Shodan for giving answers as straight as can be given to a vague question. If you have something more specific you would like answered, it is in the nature fo the forum for you to ask it. If not, don’t disparage other people for giving the best answers possible.
What do the Republicans/right wingers who now are in control of the party really want for this country? The official platform is available for all to see, but it hasn’t changed for a few years and it is doubtful that the mindset of the party also hasn’t changed in all that time. Also, I believe the OP invited others to talk about he different types of conservatism and how there platforms might differ.
I presume by “platform” he meant “agenda” – which, unlike a platform, can be a thing unstated.
I presume the same. The Official Platform is usually designed by committee to sound as grand as possible while offending the least amount of possible voters.
It’s entirely clear that the people who have traditionally had to real power in the GOP are motivated by plutocracy alone. The things they’re really willing to fight over have been pretty much entirely plutocratic in nature.
But it’s hard to enlist the help of the common man by appealing to him by saying that he should help empower the powerful, and weaken themselves, so they run a facade of caring about issues that rile them up. For example, the GOP has made abortion a huge campaign issue, to the point where supporting the status quo is the death of a campaign, yet does anyone seriously expect them to try to outlaw abortion if given the chance? No, of course not - the plutocrats don’t really care about that, and if anything, they’re pro-abortion, since it reduces the numbers of the lower classes.
Yet, when it’s entirely clear that the GOP would never actually do anything about abortion, people vote for them over and over again because they pay lipservice to the idea. You can extend this to most of their issues on non-plutocratic issue, like gay rights.
But there are some more recent developments. Lately, the trend is that rather than hiding their true plutocratic agenda and distracting the masses with those wedge issues, they’re actually actively recruiting people to support the plutocratic agenda. I have arguments all the time with people I know in real life who make 25-50k a year, who obviously are hurt by plutocratic policies, yet they will fight to the death over supporting them. These people are so brainwashed that they will argue for hours about how the Bush tax cuts should be extended, and we should cut taxes on the rich further - and to compensate, that we should broaden the tax base. Yes, these people who are struggling to get by actually advocate that their own taxes should be raised in order to fund a tax cut on the richest.
I have no explanation for this other than that they’ve already surrounded themselves with conservative echo chambers on the issues they feel passionate about (gays, abortions, pro-war, whatever) and spending enough time in the echo chamber really made that propoganda sink in. Well - I do have one alternate explanation - many of them are assholes. They’re convinced that they’re the smartest, most capable people alive, and any day now they’re going to shed their 30k/year job and become a billionaire - therefore they should advocate for the ability of billionaire’s to crush everyone else, because one day they will be amongst the elite. But that’s only a small fraction of the people.
The other recent development was that the plutocratic wing of the GOP had complete control over the actual direction of the party. They’d make their token gestures towards social conservative causes, throwing their base a bone, but the real action was geared towards their plutocratic agenda.
But they’ve done such an… extensive job of riling up their base, convincing them that anyone who isn’t part of the republican party hates america and wants to destroy it, focusing everyone’s hatred so profoundly, that they’re actually losing control of the party to the people they were using as ignorant pawns. They lit the fire and controlled it for many years, but now it risks going beyond their control. I’m not sure yet how this will turn out. I suspect that if they don’t wreck things too badly (and with stuff like the debt ceiling crisis, they come close), the economy will rebound, and people will become less radical and the fires will die down.
In that sense, they’re actually pushing too hard. The debt ceiling nonsense was a key issue - the plutocrats benefit from maintaining the status quo in this regard. The worst things get, the more radicalized their base, and the more the inmates take over the asylum. They came dangerously close to burning themselves and taking the country down with them. I suspect that probably taught them a lesson and they’re going to try to reassert their power and try to put a damper on the absolute batshittery that’s taking over their party - because if the country really did some of the insane self-destructive shit the GOP base wants now, the plutocrats would suffer greatly.
A recent suggestion for a slogan by Barney Frank: “We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts!”
Leaving zen koans and published party platforms aside, let’s try this for a second: I will post a bunch of things I perceive “the right” to want, and you lot can add or remove things as you see fit.
- Repeal PPACA.
- Lower income taxes on the middle and upper income brackets.
- Retain/create prohibitions on same sex marriage.
- Reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes.
And… go.
5: Make the Obama Presidency a failure, at any cost.
That is is an example of a very different question. It might be the question you want answered, but it is not the question the OP asked. For now, I would point out two things:
First, even I wouldn’t I know who’s “in control.” It’s really quite amusing. Evidently the farther you get from the Republicans, the more confidently you can pronounce what it really is or means or does. Nobody controls it. There’s no band of oligarchs; just a loose association of like-minded people agreeing on some things. Second, it’s still a vague and unanswerable question.
That’s perfectly fine. You, however, criticized others for providing the only factual answer possible, without offering anything yourself. Of course, I still put you above most of the other posters, who enjoy crashing a thread like this to talk, at considerable length, about how much they hate conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, and anyone else who disgrees with the poster.
To which I would respond…
Again, you’re talking about many groups with different values and interests.
“Any” cost is obviously a bit strong. I doubt anyone in the Republican Party or otherwise on the right would choose an Obama failure at the cost of making the US a one-party communist state or an Islamic theocracy or something.
Hardly; the Republicans are well known for being much more unified and organized than the Democrats. There’s a national multimedia machine to make sure they all speak and think in chorus, and a voter base that lives in a bubble isolated from reality created by that machine.
Yes, but American Movement Conservatism has thrived since 1964 by papering over those differences.
Which might no longer be possible.
Well, yeah, you can invent extreme scenarios. But the debt “crisis” showdown had a very real chance of wrecking the entire US economy, and they were willing to do it. I don’t think “any” is much of an exaggeration.
You and I agree that it could have wrecked the economy, but I think the Pauls and others were sincere in their belief that the consequences would be minor.
You know everyone here notices your evasions.
Right?
US: What does your party stand for?
YOU: Wouldn’t you like to know!
They are interested in gaining power, and some combination of exercising that power and cashing it in. Pretty much what all political parties are interested in. Now that the government is publicly traded, there isn’t much need for platforms and principles. Those have to change to accomodate the free market.
I think that’s a dangerous idea that can lead to disaster when you assume that they really won’t do something crazy that they are threatening. There’s plenty of genuine True Believers among the Republicans.